1931-06-29

Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In Hansard of Friday last I observe, at page 3079, that some remarks were made by the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart), which remarks directly concern myself. They have to do with the occurrences at a convention held at the city of Hamilton the night before. The report in connection with which the hon. member spoke is not identified, but purports to come from Hamilton under date of June 25. In order that I may identify what I have to say, perhaps the house will bear with me while I quote that report. It reads as follows:
Charges that four cabinet ministers in the recent Liberal government at Ottawa had promised to smash the glass industry in Hamilton were levelled by C. W. Bell, K.C., M.P. for Hamilton West, addressing the Conservative convention here to-night in the federal riding of Hamilton East at which M. M. Robinson, sportsman and newspaperman, was chosen Conservative candidate to contest the riding at the by-election, August 10.
Hon. Charles Stewart, Minister of the Interior, and Hon. James Malcolm, Minister of Trade and Commerce in the King government, and two other cabinet ministers had opposed the efforts of Hamilton to build up the glass industry there, said Mr. Bell.
Referring to his efforts to aid glass manufacturers in the city, Mr. Bell said: "This is the truth of the thing.
The report then continues, "In ten or twelve visits," and then follows in parantheses "to

Privilege-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
government officials at Ottawa"; this is distinctly inaccurate as these visits were made to Ottawa amongst other places. The report continues :
I did all I could. Yet every time I went to them I found that a new flood of propaganda undermining the confidence of their financial backers had been poured upon them.
This went on until one day at Ottawa I was told by Mr. Stewart, the Minister of the Interior in the King administration, and Mr. Malcolm, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and two other cabinet ministers that they would never let Hamilton get its glass industry. And they said: 'We will smash your d- industry.' "
The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysboro (Mr. Duff) then interjected, "That means ' damned,' " which proves my contention that he and I speak the same language. The hon. member for West Edmonton then continued:
May I say that when a member of the government I never was canvassed by the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) for aid for the glass industry.
There are points on which I disagree with my hon. friend, and those points I propose to mention presently. However, let me say that so far as that statement is concerned, I agree cordially with him; he never was canvassed by me for aid for the glass industry whilst he was a member of the recent government, nor did I ever say so. In so far as this statement, whatever its source may be, relates to the hon. members for West Edmonton and North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm), to that extent it is entirely accurate. The hon. member for West Edmonton continued:
When the present government cancelled by an order in council the duty which was imposed at the September session, I met the hon. member in the Chateau Laurler and had a discussion with him, but that is the only conversation I have had with him with respect to this matter.
Then the hon. member for North Bruce, in his invariably fair manner, said:
Mr. Speaker, may I join with the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) in saying that I do not wish to doubt the accuracy of the report, but as it is not based on any conversation that I can recall, I am inclined to think that the statement attributed to the hon. member for West Hamilton is not in accordance with the facts.
Under the circumstances which then obtained, I can quite believe that this matter might easily have passed from the minds of both hon. members in question, but it did not pass from mine. The circumstances to which I allude have to do not with the occasion when the glass tariff had been recalled or cancelled, but rather with an occasion some weeks after the breakup of the emergency session in September. At that time the

criticisms which were being made publicly of the efforts to establish industries amounted to a very distinct newspaper propaganda. I made a number of visits to Ottawa, as I made visits elsewhere, in an endeavour to get this industry on its feet. On the occasion to which I am referring I met the hon. members for West Edmonton and North Bruce in the Chateau Laurier. I was sending a telegram and was standing at the stand where telegrams are written, and my hon. friends came along. The hon. member for West Edmonton stood at the end of the stand, and the hon. member for North Bruce stood up against the counter where the telegrams are accepted. Both hon. members started to chaff me about our inability to get going, and presently the hon. member for North Bruce said, "Charlie, you might as well go home, you cannot do anything here; you will never get your glass factory opened." I said, "If you fellows would only leave us alone we could get it opened, but it is this ceaseless, everyday propaganda which is blocking us and we cannot get anywhere." The hon. member for West Edmonton then laughed as he is laughing now, only perhaps a little more heartily.


An hon. MEMBER:: I do not blame him.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I am not asking
the opinion of the hon. member. The hon. member for West Edmonton then said to me, "That is right, Charlie, we are going to smash that glass tariff of yours if it is the last thing we do."


Mr. DUFF:: What about the "damn"?


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is just what would occur to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysboro. Then both my hon. friends laughed and went away.
I could not laugh, Mr. Speaker, because my thoughts were with the unfortunate people in Hamilton, the poor, the needy and the unemployed who were out of work and who were looking for a chance to obtain employment through the establishment of this industry; I could not laugh at that although it seemed so funny to my hon. friends. From the attitude taken by hon. members opposite, I can quite believe that-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must ask the hon.
member to confine himself to a statement of what occurred. He is replying to a statement concerning himself which was made in this house, and I must ask him to confine himself to a statement of the facts.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Naturally, at that time the circumstances were such that the words uttered by my hon. friends burned

Privilege-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
themselves into my memory. There is no mistake about those words being uttered in the way in which they were, and that is what I want this house to appreciate and understand.
That is not all of it. Presumably after these statements were made in the house, my hon. friends gave an interview to that very excellent Liberal paper, The Hamilton Herald, and in its issue of Friday, June 26, on page 3, I read the following:
"The only time I ever discussed the glass industry of Hamilton with Mr. Bell," said Mr. Stewart, "was after the present Conservative government removed the high duties imposed at the special session of parliament last fall, and that night Mr. Bell was going to leave the Conservative party because of the government's action."
The next time the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr.Stewart) undertakes to correct me, he should get a little better acquainted with the facts. The house will notice the statement:
Removed the high duties imposed at the special session of parliament last fall, and that night-
The fact is that that night the hon. member for West Hamilton was in Cochrane, 480 miles away from the city of Ottawa. That is the exact circumstance and it shows the accuracy of my hon. friend's statement. All that week, beginning on Monday 6 and continuing until Friday 10, I was engaged at the assizes at Cochrane before Mr. Justice Garrow, and I was not any nearer Ottawa than 480 miles away. That sho-ws the accuracy of the statement made by the hon. member for West Edmonton.
Further, the hon. member for West Edmonton says:
-Mr. Bell was going to leave the Conservative party because of the government's action.
I never at any time made any such statement to him or to anyone else, and any time that I think of so acting, the first person to learn of it will be my right hon leader (Mr. Bennett) and not the hon. member for West Edmonton. I have before me the order in council dated the 9th day of October, 1930, when that tariff was removed. On that date the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perky) telephoned to me at Cochrane informing me of that removal. Therefore, at that time I was the distance I have stated from Ottawa. The hon. member for West Edmonton is totally, hopelessly inaccurate in his statement with regard to the events of that night; he cannot get away from that. I would not be so boorish as to attribute to my hon. friend the deliberate invention of any misstatement; I would not credit cr discredit
him with anything of that sort. So far as I am concerned, I believe every hon. member records the facts exactly as he believes them to be, but that statement to a newspaper is calculated to do me as grievous an injustice as could possibly be done to any man because it contains the allegation that I would be guilty of disloyalty to my leader and my party. It is absolutely incorrect and my hon. friend is entirely wrong in the thought to which he is reported as having given expression. I am quite willing to give him credit for being mistaken, but I repeat there is nothing correct in that statement which has been given out to the Hamilton Herald, and I ask now that the hon. member for West Edmonton disavow it or give me that withdrawal to which I am entitled.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What specific statement is the hon. member asking me to withdraw; he has made so many.


Leslie Gordon Bell: If my hon. friend had listened to me, he would not have had any difficulty in knowing.


Charles A. Stewart: If the hon. member will put his statement in definite terms, I will answer it.


Leslie Gordon Bell: My hon friend, as I have informed the house, is credited in the Hamilton Herald, the Liberal paper in that city, with having said:
"The only time I ever discussed the glass industry of Hamilton with Mr. Bell," said Mr. Stewart, "was after the present Conservative government removed the high duties imposed at the special session of parliament last fall, and that night Mr. Bell was going to leave the Conservative party because of the government's action."
I ask my hon. friend to disavow the entire paragraph which I have read or else give me the withdrawal to which I am entitled.


Charles A. Stewart: The reason I asked my hon. friend
to be specific about the statement was that the inference I drew, and the inference, I think, the house drew, was that this happened the night of the date of the order in council removing the duty on glass.


Leslie Gordon Bell: The statement says so.


Charles A. Stewart: It does not say so. I said it happened after the event and that statement is quite correct.


Leslie Gordon Bell: That is a fine
crawl 1


Charles A. Stewart: There is no crawl about it any more than my hon. friend

Privilege-Mr. Bell (Hamilton)
is seeking to crawl at the present moment. My hon. friend knows quite well the instance spoken of, which he made so much of the other night, is the result of the fact well known throughout Canada that I am known to be perhaps the low tariff member of the late government-it will go down better that way-and anything that happened that night was purely in the nature of a chaffing game.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Then my hon.
friend admits it.


Charles A. Stewart: I say now
on my responsibility as a member of the house that I never made the statement that I would smash the glass industry of Hamilton.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I say the hon.
member did.


Charles A. Stewart: I say I did
not. I say this on my responsibility as a member and I have just as much right to ask my hon. friend to withdraw his statement as he has to ask me to withdraw mine. I do not deny that I was opposed to an increase in the duty on glass; everyone knows that. I do not deny I was opposed to increases in the duties on almost every article contained in the budget of last September, but I do most emphatically deny that I would smash the glass industry of Hamilton, because I never uttered any such words. I think I have said enough to convince my hon. friend. I do not propose to have anything of that kind shoved down my throat.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Nor I, either.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I
have gone too far and I will withdraw anything unparliamentary that I may have said in that regard, but I do not propose to rest under a statement never made by me on any occasion. 1 have not had many conversations with the hon. gentleman, and I am sure the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) will bear me out, that no such statement was ever made.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Except chaffingly, as my hon. friend has just admitted.


William Duff: Will the hon. member give
the names of the two cabinet ministers who were there?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
West Hamilton has addressed the house on a question of privilege. The hon. member for West Edmonton has replied. There is no debate.



PRIVILEGE-MR. SANDERSON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I rise to a question of privilege. I want to refer to a statement in the Toronto Globe under date of Friday last, June 26, in connection with the report of a speech that the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) made at a convention held in that city, at which convention a Conservative candidate was chosen for the by-election. According to the report, the hon. member for West Hamilton mentioned my name and that of another hon. member on this side. Without giving their names he referred to twelve other Liberal members. Before I read this report from the Toronto Globe, I should like to say that I am glad the hon. member for West Hamilton is in his seat to-day. He has not appeared in the house very often lately.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That comment is entirely unnecessary. If the hon. member has a question of privilege to state, I would ask him to state it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am coming to it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
state it now?


Frederick George Sanderson: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I read as follows from the Toronto Globe of June 26; it is headed "Laughs":
Mr. Bell referred to the charge of Mr. King that Premier Bennett had laughed. "Why, I can tell you that Hepburn, Sanderson and a dozen other Liberals laughed outright in the house several years ago when I told of the woe the then depression was causing in Hamilton. You will remember that scores of poor persons here gathered grass and twigs on the face of the mountain, because they had no other fuel. When I mentioned such distress it was then that Hepburn and the others laughed."
The hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) is not in his seat; unfortunately he cannot be present. The hon. member for West Hamilton must have known, when he made that attack, that the hon. member for West Elgin was critically ill. I am sure the hon. member for West Elgin, if he were here-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Has the hon. member
anything to say relating to himself?


Frederick George Sanderson: I have.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If he has, he has a right to proceed with it; otherwise I shall have to interrupt him and go on with the business of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: All right, I desire to
say, Mr. Speaker, that the speech to which

Privilege-Mr. Sanderson
the hon. member for West Hamilton refers was . made on February 2, 1926, and I propose before I take my seat to read part of that speech which he says the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn) and myself laughed at. The speech in question was delivered on February 2, 1926, and I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members of this house that the hon. member for West Elgin was not then a member of parliament. He was elected on September 14, 1926, and he took his seat on December 7, 1926, so obviously he could not have sat in this house and laughed at the hon. member for West Hamilton on February 2, 1926. Whether I laughed then or not, Mr. Speaker,
I am not prepared to say.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Then I think that should be sufficient. I cannot see that any question of privilege is involved in whether the hon. member laughed or not. I must call the 'hon. member to order. There is such a thing as going to extremes under the guise of personal privilege. I cannot see that this is worthy of the attention of the house on a question of privilege. Whether the hon. member laughed or not five years ago makes no difference, and I must call him to order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Of necessity I must bow to your ruling Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I rule that the hon. member has completed his statement of privilege, and I must call him to order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Well, Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have called the hon. member to order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is it your ruling, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot proceed?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That is what it means.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then I appeal from
your ruling, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) having risen to state a question of privilege and having made his statement the Speaker ruled that further remarks on the question were out of order. The hon. member appealed from the Speaker's decision.


Frederick George Sanderson: I crave the indulgence of the house, Mr. Speaker. I have not made my statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the statement was complete. The hon, member had neither affirmed nor denied whether he laughed or did not laugh, not that it was a question
of privilege whether he did or did not laugh. I ruled that the question was finished and that there was no necessity of any further remarks, and I called the hon. member to order. He has seen fit to appeal from that decision.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the ruling.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. BROWN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. BUCKLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.


Mr. SIMPSON (North Simcoe):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the ruling.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the ruling.



REPARATIONS COMMISSION

Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the matter to which I desire to direct my remarks may in some respects be in the nature of a question of privilege. In order to avoid any misapprehension of the actual facts however I wish to state that the first report of Mr. Mc-Dougald, K.C., commissioner on reparations, is dated March 6 last, and was approved by order in council of March 12, the date on which parliament convened. This report was laid on the table of the house the following Tuesday, March 17 and the cheques in payment of the award of the commissioner are all dated Saturday, March 21, 1931.



PRIVILEGE-MR. BROWN

John Livingstone Brown: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) made a statement at a public meeting reflecting upon the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Hepburn). In view of the fact that the last named hon. member was not here to speak for himself the hon. member for South Perth (Mr. Sanderson) brought the matter to the attention of the house. Had the hon. member for West Elgin been here he would have had the right to stand in his place and demand that the statement attributed to the hon. member for West Hamilton be retracted.

Questions
I think the matter should not be laid aside until the hon. member for West Hamilton is asked to send an apology to the member for West Elgin.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
8T. peter's canal-lockmen

Mr. POUIJOT:: 1. At what dates did the Department of Railways approve the completion of new stations, at: (a) Halifax; (b) Hamilton; (c) Vegreville; (d) Wainwright; (e) Salvus?
2. At what dates did the Department of Railways and Canals approve the construction of new stations at: (a) Parry Sound, Ontario;
(b)	Saskatoon; (c) Redbank; (d) Creek des Prairies?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	(a) June 6, 1930; (b) December 2, 1930;
(c)	June 6, 1930; (d) September 16, 1930; (e) September 16, 1930.
2.	(a) June 6, 1930; (b) June 6, 1930 (afterwards cancelled); (c) Cancelled; (d) September 16, 1930.


ST. PAUL, QUE.-RURAL MAIL DELIVERY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FAFARD;
1.	Has the Post Office Department decided to establish a rural mail delivery service at St. Paul, in the county of Montmagny?
2.	If so, when will said service start?
3.	Were tenders called?
4.	Was the contract granted?
5.	If so, to whom?
Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	As soon as conditions required are complied with.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	Joseph Cote.


RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF-WORKMEN
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What are the names of: (a) the foreman;
(b)	assistant foreman or supervisor; (c) carpenters; (d) labourers, who have worked in 1931 and who are working on the Riviere du Loup wharf at the present time?
2.	What is the salary of each one of them?
3.	Who recommended them to the department?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds);
1.	Worked on April 10, 1931 (greasing and oiling hoisting apparatus of slips): (a) Alexandre Ouellet, 62i cents per hour; (b) nil;
(c)	nil; (d) Honore Beaulieu, 40 cents per hour, Lucien Potvin, 35 cents per hour, Emile Madore, 35 cents per hour.
At present engaged (improving automobile landing): (a) Alphonse Goulet, $6 per day;
(b)	nil; (c) Alexandre Ouellet, 55 cents per hour, Alfred Pelletier (timberman), 421 cents per hour, Frank Cimon (timberman), 42| cents per hour, Emile Madore (timberman), 42J cents per hour; (d) Guillaume Boucher, 35 cents per hour.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	District engineer.


RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF-REPAIRS, 1930
Mr. POULIOT:: June 22-In their report annexed to the vote, what was the engineer's estimate,-
1.	Of the works done on the Riviere du Loup wharf in 1930: (a) before August 7, 1930; (b) after August 7, i930?
2.	Of other repairs to this wharf for which an amount was included in the vote of 19301931, and which were not done?
3.	Why were these repairs not made in 1930?
4.	Who prevented their execution?
5.	Has the department ordered all said repairs to be made this year?
6.	If not, which ones?
Questions


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	No such estimate supplied in engineer's report for periods mentioned.
2.	$15,200.
3.	On account of proposed project of extension, which if carried out would render repairs useless.
4.	Answered by No. 3.
5.	No.
6.	Authorized to date: (a) greasing and oiling hoisting apparatus of the two slips; (b) the temporary improvement of the landing for automobiles.


RIVIERE DU LOUP WHARF-PRESENT REPAIRS
Mr. POULIOT :: 1.	What works are being carried on at the Riviere du Loup wharf, at the present time?
2.	Are the repairs done to the eastern landing place in 1931 sufficient to allow automobiles to load and unload?
3.	Who recommended these works to the department?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Removing trusses or arches of eastern slip and placing them underneath to give a wider passage for automobiles.
2.	Yes.
3.	District engineer.


CIVIL SERVANTS-STATUTORY LEAVE
Mr. AHEARN:: 1.	Is it the practice to refuse statutory leave on account of holidays to permanent civil servants upon compulsory retirement, due to abolition of office?
2.	Did the Department of the Interior grant statutory holiday leave for the fiscal year which ended the 31st March, 1931, to permanent civil servants compulsorily retired during that fiscal year, owing to the transfer of natural resources?
3.	Are there any instances in the Department of the Interior, prior to the current fiscal year, where the government refused to grant statutory holiday leave to permanent civil servants, who were retired on account of abolition of office, if so, how many?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1,	2 and 3. All employees who were notified that the department no longer required their services and that steps were being taken to arrange their retirement, under the terms of the act under which they were contributing, provided it was not found possible to arrange their reassignment to other government positions for which they were eligible, were granted whatever holiday leave they had earned, including leave deferred from the preceding

year. The employees notified at the beginning of the present fiscal year had not earned holiday leave in this fiscal year, but of course, these get any deferred leave due them from last year.


RIVIERE DU LOUP-NEW STATION
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	After September 4, 1930, did anybody report to the Department of Railways and Canals, as mentioned in reference 314, that there was no necessity for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup as, with proper repairs, additions and improvements, the existing accommodation could be rendered satisfactory?
2.	If so: (a) at what date; and (b) at whose request was such report forwarded to the Department of Railways and Canals?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	The return, reference No. 314, contains no reference to any such report.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


* CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-SUNNY BRAE TO GUYSBOROUGH CONSTRUCTION
Mr. DUFF:: 1.	Have instructions been issued to the contractors on the partly constructed railroad from Sunny Brae to Guysborough to cease work and remove their equipment?
2.	If not, will the government and Canadian
National Railways proceed with the construction of the right-of-way, the placing of bridges, laying of rails and ballasting of road, this present season?	_
3.	Were bonds issued for sufficient funds to build said railroad?
4.	Was the sum of $3,500,000 or thereabouts provided in that or any other way for the purpose of said construction?


Mr. MANION:: In view of the discussion
of these questions before the railway committee, the railway officials are wondering if the hon. gentleman Still desires that they be answered. I submit that if the answers he received in the committee are satisfactory to him, the question might be dropped.


William Duff: It would be satisfactory to
me, but I should like to have the answers for my constituents.


Robert James Manion: Of course, the hon. gentleman has them in the committee reports, because he discussed the question there with the officials of the railway.


William Duff: I understand that since that
date further equipment has been removed from the work.


Robert James Manion: All right; it stands.

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
^CURRENCY IN CIRCULATION


Mr. SPENCER:: 1. What was the total of chartered bank notes in circulation on the 31st of May, 1930?
2. What was the total of chartered bank notes in circulation on 31st May, 1931?
3.	What was the total amount of dominion notes in circulation on 31st May, 1930?
4.	What was the total amount of dominion notes in circulation on 31st May, 1931?
5.	What was the amount of subsidiary coin held by the banks and in circulation as of 31st May, 1930?
6.	What was the amount of subsidiary coin held by the banks and in circulation as of 31st May, 1931?


Mr. BENNETT:: The information with respect to this question is not yet available as the final returns for May will not be received until to-morrow. Then the question will be answered as soon as possible.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Question 22 stands. UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS soldiers' pensions


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: For a return showing:
1.	Number of new disability and dependent pensions (not including cases of commuted pension) allowed by the Board of Pension Commissioners between October 1, 1930, and May 31, 1931.
2.	Number of cases of pensions previously commuted, reinstated on pension by Board of Pension Commissioners between October 1, 1930, and May 31, 1931.
3.	Retroactive payments and annual liability under 2.
4.	Number of cases allowed by the pension tribunal in the same period.
5.	Number of cases rejected by the pension tribunal and allowed by the Pension Appeal court to June 15, 1931.
6.	Number of cases allowed by the pension tribunal and rejected by the Pension Appeal court in the same period.
7.	Cost to May 31, 1931, of: (a) the Board of Pension Commissioners and their administration as such; (b) the pension tribunal and their staff (1) salaries; (2) travelling expenses; (c) Pensions advocates and staff (1) salaries; (2) travelling expenses; (d) commission counsel and staff (1) salaries; (2) travelling expenses; (e) Pension Appeal court and staff (1) salaries; (2) travelling expenses.
S.	Monetary value of all pensions payable during same period: (a) by Board of Pension Commissioners; (b) by decisions of pension tribunal and not appealed; (c) by decisions of the Pension Appeal court.
9. Number of cases (outside the decisions of the pension board) finally disposed of by the Pension Appeal court to June 15, 1931.


WHITESIDE CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between Premier Anderson of Saskatchewan and the
Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, Prime Minister of Canada, since January 1, 1930, relative to certain claims, queries and allegations made by Robert Whiteside of Saskatchewan, with respect to the marketing of the Canadian wheat crop, during the grain years of 1917-1918, 1918-1919, and 1919-1920.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume the hon. gentleman means January 1, 1931?


STURGEON FALLS, ONTARIO-PUBLIC BUILDING CARETAKER
Mr. HIJRTUBISE:: For a copy of all letters, telegrams and reports regarding the position of caretaker of the public building in the town of Sturgeon Falls, Ontario, and a statement giving reasons for the appointment of Walter Clark.


JACQUES GRENIER
William Duff: For a copy of the report of the investigation held into the case of Jacques Grenier, light and signal keeper, at St. Godfroy, Quebec.


ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION-CORRESPONDENCE
Mr. DONNELLY:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents exchanged, since the 29th April, 1931, between the Department of Trade and Commerce, or any member of the government and any member of the commission, appointed on April 10, 1931, under part I of the Enquiries Act. to inquire into and report upon what effect, if any, the dealing in grain futures has upon the price received by the producer.


ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION-PROCEEDINGS AND EVIDENCE
John Vallance: For a copy showing a complete transcript of the evidence taken before the Stamp commission, together with copy of all exhibits filed, and including also copy of all instructions issued to any or all members of said commission, and all correspondence prior to, during the, and subsequent to the appointment of said commission, between the members thereof and any minister of the crown.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Jean-François Pouliot: For a copy of the letter, memorandum, note or other document sent by or emanating from the right hon member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley), in the absence of the Minister of Railways and Canals in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister on or about October 4. 1930, or from his secretary, and addressed to the Acting Deputy Minister or the secretary of the Department of Railways and Canals, with reference to awarding a contract for the construction of the proposed new station at Riviere du Loup.
:136
Motions jor Papers


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, there are no
such documents, memoranda or letters, so the order might as well be dropped. We cannot bring down something which does not exist.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion dropped.


W. R. LITTLE REPORT
John Livingstone Brown: For a copy of the report made by Mr W. R. Little, of the Department of Immigration, covering an inquiry held in Glasgow, Scotland, in April, 1930, with reference to complaints made by Mr. A. M. Graham.


Mr. GORDON:: Mr. Speaker, I should like this motion to stand until I have had a chance to look into it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion will stand at the request of the minister.
Motion stands.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES AT CAMPBELLTON, ETC.
Mr. LARUE:: For a return showing:
1.	A complete list of the Canadian National Railways employees working in the offices of said railways at Campbellton, including the date of their entry in the service and the salary paid to each.
2.	The names of those from the counties of Matane and Rimouski.
3.	The names of the Canadian National Railways employees working under the direction of Mr. E. Savage, bridge foreman.
4.	The names of those from the counties of Matane and Rimouski.


Robert James Manion: The railway officials, Mr. Speaker, object to bringing down this information for two reasons: first, they say it is not in the interests of the company; second, questions of this sort take a great deal of time to prepare. In view of these reasons I hope my hon. friend will permit the motion to be dropped.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Number 7 will be dropped.


CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION-EXAMINATION RATINGS OF CHARLES MOREAU AND OTHERS
William Duff: For a copy of all correspondence, documents, reports of examination, rating and marks obtained by each competitor, recommendations in favour of any competitor by members of parliament, or others, with respect to an examination held in Quebec during the month of April or May, 1931, and in particular the marks obtained by Charles Moreau, a disabled ex-soldier, for the position of caretaker, Department of Public Works, Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the hon. member who has placed this motion on the order paper, I think it had better stand for to-day because there are grave difficulties about providing the return in view of what was said last session in respect to a similar matter.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Number 8 stands.


CENSUS ENUMERATOR FOR NEW RICHMOND, QUEBEC
William Duff: For a copy of the letter addressed by B. C. G. McKenzie, of New Richmond, Quebec, to G. M. Kempffer, census commissioner for the county of Bonaventure, concerning his application for employment as enumerator for New Richmond, Quebec.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the absence of the
hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil), and in view of representations made to the house, perhaps this motion had better stand so that we will not needlessly take up time with respect to it to-day.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Number 10 stands.


BEAUHARNOIS POWER CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the order of reports of committees:
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) presented the third report of the special committee appointed to investigate the Beauharnois project.
Mr. GORDON moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: On the orders
of the day I should like to ask a question which affects the privileges of this house. In this evening's Ottawa Journal there is a communication in the nature of a Canadian Press despatch, by direct wire from St. Catharines, Ontario, dated June 29. The item is headed:
Former Minister May Quit Party Chaplin will not Support Canadian-Australian Treaty
In quotation marks the following statement
appears:
*'I will not support this treaty. It may mean that I may have to break with my party. I may be kicked out but I will not support it" ....
Then following the quotation marks:
.... declared Hon. J. D. Chaplin, former Minister of Trade and Commerce, and Con-

Unemployment Situation
servative member of parliament for Lincoln, addressing a meeting of Niagara district grape growers here on the proposed trade treaty between Canada and Australia.
I should like to ask the hon. member if he is correctly reported and, if so, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether some members of this House of Commons are being favoured with advance copies of a treaty which if available should be made so to all members.


Hon. J. D. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: I think possibly the hon. gentleman will find that it is a case of being wrongly reported.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The second question is
now answered.


UNEMPLOYMENT SITUATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Keniora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the widespread and increasing unemployment in Canada, will the government tell the house when we may expect a statement as to what provision they intend to make to take care of the unemployed throughout the country.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, at an appropriate time
a statement will be made. The Minister of Labour has just returned from the west, as perhaps the hon. member knows. The primary duty with respect to unemployment does not rest with the federal government; I just wish to remind my hon. friend of that statement, because it is one he used frequently himself.


Peter Heenan: I do not suppose I am in order in discussing this, but I understood that the Prime Minister told the electors it was a national obligation.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member is not in order in making that statement now. He has addressed a question to the government and the Prime Minister has answered him. If he wishes to debate the matter there is an appropriate time when he may do so.


Peter Heenan: The Prime Minister has given an answer which is not satisfactory.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The answer may not suit the hon. member, but nevertheless it is an answer and that is all there is to it.


Peter Heenan: Then, Mr. Speaker, I move the adjournment of the 'house to discuss this question.
22:10-199


Richard Bedford Bennett: This question has been discussed four times already. Surely it cannot possibly come up again.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The motion is not debatable. What my ruling would have been had the application been made at the proper time is neither here nor there, but an application for leave to move the adjournment of the house must be asked after the ordinary daily routine of business has been concluded and before notices of motion or orders of the day are proceeded with. It is too late now for this motion.


DOMINION DAY SITTING
Mr. ROBERT GARDINER (Acadia) :: May I inquire of the Prime Minister whether it is the intention to sit on Wednesday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the intention of the government that the house should sit.


ROYAL GRAIN COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Richard Motherwell: I was just wondering if the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or in his absence, the Prime Minister, as a result of their investigations carried on over the week end, can give this expectant house any further information with regard to that supplementary appendix XII to the Stamp commission report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This matter being covered by an order for return which has been passed by the house, the hon. gentleman will realize that he is now out of order. He has seen fit also to put a question on the order paper, and in due course it will have to be dealt with by the house.


William Richard Motherwell: The Minister of Trade and Commerce promised to make an investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the hon. member saw fit to put a question on the order paper, and it will have to be dealt with.


PEACE RIVER OUTLET
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the conference between the
Minister of Railways, Mr. Beatty and Sir Henry Thornton taken place as yet? If so, when may we expect a statement from the minister with regard to the Peace River outlet?

3138	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King


Robert James Manion: The conference has not taken place. A day was fixed, but Sir Henry Thornton, who was tied up in the committee, asked to have it adjourned to a later date, which has not been set as yet.


TARIFF BOARD
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Friday, June 26, consideration of the motion of the Right Hon. Mr. Bennett for the second reading of Bill No. 47, to provide for the appointment of a tariff board, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Ilsley.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
It is evident that all parties in the house are more or less in agreement as to the advisability of there being some board in the nature of an investigating, fact finding body to assist the government of the day with respect to the tariff and matters incidental thereto. If the bill now before the house did not go further than to make provision for the appointment of an advisory board on tariff and taxation in the nature of a fact finding board there would be no occasion for the amendment which has been moved to the motion for second reading. However, the bill now before the house goes far beyond merely constituting an advisory board on tariff matters, and for that reason it does not meet with the approval of at least the official opposition and I believe, once its provisions are carefully considered, it will not meet with the approval of many other hon. members of this house.
The fact that the present bill goes much beyond what existed heretofore in the nature of an advisory board on tariff matters is evident from the fact that my right hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) was not content to allow the board, which he found in existence on coming into office himself, to remain in office but thought it necessary to dispense entirely with the services of that body and to make provision for another body which would have more extensive powers and some wholly different powers.
The reason given by my right hon. friend for the abolition of the previous board does not seem to me to be a satisfactory one. He said that the old tariff board had not statutory authority. I cannot agree with him in that. The supply bill is a statute, just as is every other bill once it passes both houses and receives royal assent, and express provision was made in the supply bill of 1926 for the

appointment of a tariff board; and in the succeeding years express provision was made in the supply bills for the continuance of the work of that board. The reason given by my right hon. friend is therefore not in itself sufficient to account for the abolition of that board. I believe a reason uppermost in the mind of my right hon. friend was that he had not confidence in the board which he found in office, and to my way of thinking that constituted a sufficient reason for his desiring to change its personnel. However, I do not think it was a sufficient reason summarily to dispense with the entire staff and the general machinery which had been provided. Had my right hon. friend desired to have a board for the purpose of assisting the government in obtaining information on tariff matters, what had been brought into existence under .previous legislation would have been of great assistance to him. If what he had in mind was simply a means of gathering information, there was even less reason for his making a summary change when it is considered that there was a vacancy in the position of chairman of the board. He had the way open to appoint as chairman of the board someone who would be entirely acceptable to himself. So far as the other two members were concerned, I do not suppose that any hon. member on this side of t'he house would have taken more than passing exception to his making a change in the personnel in that particular, if he felt that such action was necessary in order to give him the confidence which he desired to have in a board which was to advise him on tariff matters.
Accordingly, it is necessary to look elsewhere for the real reason. As I said before, one reason was that my right hon. friend had not confidence in the existing board, but he had a further and, I believe, perhaps a more imperative reason. He wished to make wholesale drastic changes in the tariff, and he desired to make those changes without reference to any advisory board. He was about to call a special session of parliament, and although the public did not know it, he knew that he intended at that session to bring in far-reaching changes in the tariff, all of which were to be in an upward direction, so much in an upward direction, many of them, as to be prohibitive. He felt that were any tariff board in existence, whether it was the old board or a board altered in accordance with his own desire to gain more in the way of confidence, it would have been a natural thing for this house to have suggested a reference of the proposed changes to that board before they were made. But, as I said before, my right hon. friend wished to make the
JUNE 29, 1931	[DOT]
Tariff Board*-Mr. Mackenzie King
changes without any such possibility, and so he got rid of the board immediately. May I point out also that at this session he is continuing those drastic, wholesale, upward revisions of the tariff, and is doing so before any new board can come into existence. My right hon. friend made it doubly clear that what he wanted in a tariff board was not a board to advise him as to how to alter the tariff or as to the possible consequences of the alterations he might make, but a board which would work his will with respect to certain other features of the tariff once he had altered the tariff in the way in which he himself proposed. That, I think, is perfectly clear.
I feel more assured in making this statement because of the length of time taken by my right hon, friend on the second reading of this bill to quote from one of the reports of the tariff board in the United States, which, by the way, in many of its particulars, is the board which he is seeking to copy. I have had occasion before to remark how frequently my right hon. friend goes to the United States, not for the best examples of the legislation of that country but for some of the worst features of its legislation. This is another example. He tells the house that this is a board modelled after the tariff board in the United States. It is in some features, some to which we object, although when the provisions of the present bill are read1 it will be seen at once that the sections of the American act which were obviously for the purpose of making the United States board as impartial as possible have not been repeated, and are not to be found1 in this legislation. In referring to the American legislation my right hon. friend quoted at length from a report of the United States board which deals with the tariff on maple sugar, a tariff which the board had found to be too high and had recommended should be reduced. In making the present increases in the tariff no doubt my right hon. friend has had io mind that he will make them of such a character, as to height as well as to extent, that whatever board he appoints will for the balance of the time he is in office-at any rate for this parliament- find its time taken up with lowering duties. These reductions will not be made to an extent to be felt by the consumer to his advantage, 'but will simply be the reduction to lower levels still prohibitive of what at the present time amounts in the case of many changes to a completely prohibitive tariff. It is easy to see that if duties are put at say 100 per cent, and 40 per cent is sufficient to keep out a particular article, the board may well spend days and weeks and months in taking evidence and finally reporting that the 22110-1991
duty should be reduced from 100 to 40 per cent, and still not give any relief to consumers. I believe that once this board is brought into existence that is what it will find itself doing in connection with most of the tariff items which will come before it.
The tariff itself is being widely and materially altered at the present time without reference whatever to any board. That is a rather significant fact, because if the purpose of this board were primarily that of advising the government with regard to tariff changes, then if that purpose has any merit whatever, the proposed changes should certainly be submitted in the first instance to the board so that the government might have the benefit of its advice as to what the effect of the proposed changes will be. That the advisory feature with respect to changes that are likely to affect industry and the well-being of consumers is wholly secondary in the mind of my right hon. friend is evident from the tariff changes he has already introduced, and from the fact that this bill is being introduced only after the tariff has been so drastically and considerably changed. This particular circumstance makes quite clear, wherein the proposed bill in its intent goes far beyond the provisions of any legislation previously existing. The old tariff board was one appointed to consider and advise in advance, upon the effect of any intended changes in the tariff. It was one to which the government of the day submitted its proposed changes.
The extent to which the legislation at present before the house goes beyond making provision for a board which will be purely and simply advisory with regard to tariff changes, is apparent from the provisions of the bill. I shall run over those provisions so as to indicate to hon. members something of the extent of the change. May I also in passing make mention of this fact, that my right hon. friend would probably have left the machinery of the old tariff board in existence as it was until this particular bill was passed had he not felt that with the old machinery still in existence, the contrast between what was there provided and what is provided in the bill which he has introduced would be more marked than it otherwise could be.
Considering then whether or not this measure does not go very much beyond what is needed to provide a fact finding board that is purely advisory, the first section to which I would direct attention is section 3, subsection (3), which reads:
Each member shall hold office during good behaviour for a period of ten years from the date of his appointment, but may be removed for cause at any time by the governor in, council.
3140	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
In order to get a board to function as a board of investigation, it is not necessary to make the tenure of office of its members ten years. Indeed, I think my right hon. friend himself, once this measure is passed, if it is passed in this form, will regret the fact once appointments are made that he made them for a period of ten years without affording to his administration any preliminary trial whatever of the adequacy or efficiency of the personnel of the board. He is making it impossible for himself to make a change without adopting a course which will immediately create offence in the mind of someone. That it is not necessary to fix a period of ten years is clear from the fact that the previous administration found no difficulty in securing well qualified members -for a board of investigation without fixing any derm of years at all, and in having all appointments made at pleasure. If that were possible under one administration, it is equally possible under another. I think one has only to consider the nature of the investigation of tariff matters to realize that throughout this country there are many well trained economists and others possessing qualifications necessary to enable them to perform admirably all the duties of an investigating, fact finding board, who would be very glad of an opportunity of serving the government of the country without guarantee other than that their appointments would be at pleasure, or in other words, that the appointment would continue as long as their services were acceptable to the government of the day.
The ten year period is of itself convincing as to the purpose that my right hon. friend has in mind, namely the creation of a body that will be of assistance to the government in matters other than those solely of investigation. Indeed, if one reads subsection (6) of the same section, one will discover that the government has recognized the possibility of obtaining a well qualified person to act even in a temporary capacity. Sob-section (6) of section 3 reads:
If any member by reason of illness or other incapacity is unable at any time to perform the duties of his position, the governor in council may make a temporary appointment of a qualified person to act in his place upon such terms and conditions and for such time as the governor in council may prescribe.
If a qualified person can be found for a temporary post, surely a qualified person can be found for a post which will admit of his being employed during the pleasure of the administration. I need not dwell longer on that, but I shall refer a little later on to the added significance which is given to the ap-

pointment for ten years in virtue of other duties which my right hon. friend is giving to the board.
Section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (b) sets out one of the duties of the board to be appointed. The duty there assigned is entirely new as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) in his admirable address to the house on moving the amendment which is now before us. Section 4, subsection 1, paragraph (b) reads as follows:
In respect of goods produced in or imported into Canada the board shall, under the direction of the minister, make inquiry as to
(b) the cost of production in Canada and elsewhere, and what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required to equalize differences in the cost of production.
I ask the house to take particular note of these words: "What increases or decreases in rates of duty are required." That goes very much further than simply finding facts. I am sure every hon. member will see that at least it means the drawing of inferences. As the hon. member who has moved the amendment has said, it goes the length of helping to form opinions. I should be inclined to believe it goes the length of duty-making, of actually determining what the duty shall be for a particular purpose, of advising and giving the ministry the grounds for its policy and its action alike, in fixing particular rates of duty. At page 3083 of Hansard my right hon. friend, in speaking of the board's function in this particular, is reported as having said:	" It has to determine what duty is
necessary." May I say to my right hon. friend, when he introduced the resolution upon which this bill was based, he told us specifically that this board would not have the right to draw any inferences. That there may be no doubt about the matter, may I quote for my right hon. friend the page of unrevised Hansard in which he states that the board will not have the right to draw any inferences.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt about that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I refer to page 1782 of Hansard. As my right hon. friend admits this, I need not read what he said, his words were: "inferences are not to be drawn by the board." If the board is not to have the right of drawing inferences, how is it going to be able to determine what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required in order to equalize differences in costs of production? That is all clearly in the nature of inference, as a result of investiga-

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
ti-on. It is drawing inferences. It is helping in that way to determine actually what increases of duty will be imposed.
There is another subsection of the same section which makes it also apparent that not only with respect to the rates of duty but also with respect to prices this board will be expected to perform an important function, a function which comes well-nigh determining at what particular prices commodities are to be kept fixed, nominally to save the consumer from exploitation, but in reality in many cases undoubtedly to keep prices at a particular level. Paragraphs (e) and (f) of section 4 read as follows, referring to matters to be inquired into by the board:.
(e)	all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada;
(f)	generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries.
In other words, this board will be expected to inquire into the matter of prices at which certain commodities are being sold in Canada in comparison with the prices in other countries, and both in relation to the cost of production; and the government of the day in virtue of the legislation which it is introducing will unquestionably base its tariff action upon the inferences drawn in that regard. The board's conclusions will become the determining factor in regulating prices as well as rates of duties, on the pretext of saving the consumer from exploitation, in reality to protect this manufacturer in the sale of his commodities within the country as well as against competition from without.
As was pointed out by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) in quoting Professor [DOT] Taussig of Harvard, who had had three or four years' experience as a member of the tariff board in the United States, it is an impossibility for any board to attempt to determine what increases or decreases in rates of duty are required in order to equalize differences in the cost of production, or what is necessary with respect to the cost and prices of commodities, and to that end to make comparisons between prices and costs in different countries. One has but to ask oneself what are the difficulties in one's own country of determining what goes to make up the costs of production of any commodity to realize that if the board's functions were limited to that alone it would have just about all it could attempt to do; but hon. members will realize that citizens of another country are not going to permit a board of a foreign nation to examine into their industries, investigate their books, and determine comparative costs. It is perfectly clear that in that regard the function which assumedly is being given to this board is one thait it will find it impossible to perform. Nevertheless, being given that power, the board is to determine what increases or decreases in rates of duty are necessary to make costs of production in this country equal to what they are in other countries. Moreover this task could it be performed and were it acted upon, would put an end to all international trade.
I pass on to the next subsection, which also indicates very clearly wherein the proposed board goes much further than being merely a fact finding body to advise the government with respect to tariffs as a result of investigation. Subsection 2 of section 4 reads as follows:
The board shall make inquiry into any other matter, upon which the minister desires information, in relation to any goods which, if brought into Canada or produced in Canada, are subject to or exempt from duties of customs or excise, and shall report to the minister, and the inquiry into any such matter may include inquiry as to the effect which an increase or decrease of the existing rate of duty upon a given commodity might have upon industry or trade, and the extent to which the consumer is protected from exploitation.
I ask hon. members to note those words, "the effect which an increase or decrease of the existing rate of duty upon a given commodity might have upon industry or trade, and the extent to which the consumer is protected from exploitation." When a board is asked to report upon the effect of anything, it is not merely reporting on the facts; it is drawing conclusions. In fact, an inquiry of that kind would require the board itself to make an investigation into the effects of the existing tariffs, and so far as its members had any preconceived views regarding the virtue of tariffs or the reverse, their judgment in a matter of that kind would certainly be biased and be affected by their views.
I pass on to the next subsection:
The board may be empowered by the governor in council to hold an inquiry under section fifteen of the Customs Tariff, in the same manner as the judge of the exchequer court or any other judge therein referred to may be so empowered, and the said section shall include and apply to the board as if it were therein expressly named.
Here is a very wide departure. This goes completely beyond any power given at any previous time to a board of investigation. This subsection will empower the board to exercise functions which to-day can only be exercised under section 15 of the Custom* Tariff. Section 15 of the Customs Tariff was inserted in order to give to the consumers of the country the benefit of a judicial inquiry
3142	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
conducted by members of the judiciary, who are entirely removed from politics, who in no way owe their appointment to the views they may hold on fiscal questions, and who are entirely removed from any government influence or control. They are given the power of making an investigation where it is thought that the customs tariff is operating in a way that is detrimental to consumers or producers. Once this particular subsection is on the statute book the government will be able to turn over to a board of its own appointees the duty of making an investigation which at the present time can only be made by a judge of the exchequer court or some other judge to whom the matter may be referred. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that we should be very careful before we take away from the people of this country this slight degree of judicial protection which they now have with respect to the effects of a customs tariff and allow the government of the day instead to refer the subject matter of investigation to a board of its own creation, a board which cannot be other than biased, a board the appointees of which share the views of the government with respect to the tariff. The judiciary is an independent body. No matter could come before any of its members unless it were so serious as to be brought under section IS of the Customs Tariff. But once the present measure is passed the functions of the judiciary will for this purpose to all intents and purposes be usurped by a body, which, as I have said, has been appointed by the ministry of the day to further its own particular views with regard to what the tariff policy of this country should be. That is a very serious alteration to permit.
May I point out further that by this change the government is making of the proposed tariff board not a board of investigation, but a court. There is no question about that being, the principal intention. My right hon. friend did not lead the house to believe when he was introducing his measure that what he intended to do was to add to the number of the courts in the country, but he did tell us on the second reading of the bill that what he was establishing as a new court.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said that on the resolution-a court of record.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly my
right hon. friend did, and I beg his pardon if I have overlooked that fact. The point I wish to bring out is this. He did not stress what I believe to be the essential feature of this bill, that it is creating a new court to deal with tariff matters; matters far beyond any mere question of investigation for pur-

poses of -mere fact-finding. The establishment of a new court to deal with tariff matters as though they were matters of property and civil rights is the primary purpose of this bill; I do not think that my right hon. friend will deny that, and to that extent it goes far beyond anything which this parliament has previously countenanced as a part of the function of an advisory board intended only to advise on tariff matters. I do not wish to .say that the members whom my right hon. friend will appoint to the board will be intentionally partisan. That would be going too far, and we cannot say, until we see how they perform their duties to what extent their partisanship may extend. The public in general however will at least have the feeling that such protection as is afforded them to-day by the courts under the section of the Customs Tariff to which I have referred will be taken away or of no avail and that hereafter they will be at .the mercy of a board of partisans appointed by the administration of the day.
May I refer to the next suDsection, which is subsection 4 of section 4 of the bill. It reads as follows:
The governor in council may empower the board to make any investigation or hold any inquiry authorized by the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, or of a relative nature, and for these purposes the board shall have all the powers, authority and jurisdiction vested in the registrar or in a commissioner appointed under that act to hold investigations.
I ask the house to consider for a moment or two the purposes of the Combines Investigation Act. It was passed to enable consumers or producers who believed their interests were being adversely affected by tariffs, through combinations or monopolies in restraint of trade formed as a result of tariffs or in other ways, to have the protection of an investigation conducted in a manner in which they would have reason to feel a degree of confidence. The old Combines Investigation Act which was introduced and passed in this house in the year 1910 provided that parties who felt they were being adversely affected by a monopoly, trust, merger or the like might apply for inquiry by a board of investigation and in the event of a prima facie case being made out might themselves name a member of the board of investigation. In turn the trust, monopoly or whatever concern was charged with operating against the interests of the public was permitted to name a member of the board. If the two parties interested could agree upon a chairman they were permitted so to do, and in the event of their not agreeing the government of the day was empowered to appoint a chairman. Before

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
the body thus approved the parties interested were entitled to have their own representatives appear and they were likely as a consequence to have confidence in such a body. The old board provided a great protection to parties in this country against monopolies and mergers operating to the detriment of the public behind the shelter of a protective tariff. That act remained on the statutes from the year 1910 until the year 1919 when the then government of the day, a Conservative administration, repealed the act and substituted therefor a board of commerce. The board of commerce was to have to do with the administration of a Fair Prices Act, as it was termed and enacted at that time. I do not think at this time I need go into the history of the board of commerce and the Fair Prices Act. Hon. members will recall that the board of commerce was in the nature of a court. Hon. members may also recall that one of the judges resigned because he felt the operations of that board were biased in favour of special interests and not in accordance with the best interests of the people. The legality of the legislation was very shortly after its enactment called in question, an appeal was made to the supreme court and was carried subsequently to the privy council. The judicial committee of the privy council declared the legislation to be ultra vires.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In peace times.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was declared ultra vires in peace times. I do not know that the observation of my right hon. friend helps the matter in any way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not say that it
does.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Because the statute was enacted in peace times; it was repealed in peace times; and I hope we are still in peace times.
At any rate when the legislation was declared ultra vires it was repealed. I submit that an examination of the legislation now before us will convince any hon. member that the government is seeking, under the guise of a court differently named, to restore something resembling the old board of commerce. The duties assigned to the board under this bill are very similar to those the board of commerce had when it was called to administer the Fair Prices Act. The court that is now being formed, among other duties, is to have the obligation-if the government chooses to assign it the obligation-of administering an all important part of the Combines Investigation Act.
When the Board of Commerce Act and the Fair Prices Act were repealed, a new enactment was brought foiward by the Liberal administration of the day in 1923. Another Combines Investigation Act, framed in the way the government of the day believed would best secure the confidence of those on whose behalf it was enacted, was placed again upon the statutes. To all intents and purposes the legislation now before us has for its puipose the abolition of the real intent of that combines legislation because if the government so desires all the duties prescribed under the statute creating the Combines Investigation Act, as reenacted in 1923, may be withheld from the parties entrusted with inquiry imder the Combines Investigation Act and passed over to the new board, which as I have already said, is a body chosen to further the government's point of view on tariff matters. To my mind such a possible change is of a most serious nature. May I make mention of the further fact, that the validity of the Combines Investigation Act of 1923 has been tested in the courts. Certain interests which believed the act was operating in a manner which made it difficult for them to carry on their alleged combine or monopoly, brought an action to test the validity of the act. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the validity of the act and the case was carried to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. The judicial committee upheld the decision of the supreme court.
With regard to the legislation before us, we are therefore in the curious position that provision is being made whereby for legislation which has stood the test of the highest courts in Canada and the empire there may be substituted by the government a procedure wholly similar to that of the Board of Commerce in its administration of the Fair Prices Act, which was declared by the courts to be ultra vires. To point out clearly the parallel between the two cases may I state that by the Board of Commerce Act a board was set up consisting of three commissioners appointed by the governor in council and given the powers of a court of record. The duty of the board was to administer the second of the two statutes in question, namely the Combines and Fair Prices Act, called the Special Act. The present bill constitutes the tariff board a court of record. It is to make inquiries into the prices received by producers, manufacturers, wholesalers, dealers, retailers and other distributors, and note all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the prices to consumers in Canada. As in the case with respect to the protection given consumers and

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
producers by the provisions of the Customs Act relating to judicial inquiry in certain cases my right bon. friend is again giving to the governor in council the power to take away from the consumers and producers of Canada the remedy which at the present time under the Combines Investigation Act they enjoy, of having investigation made by persons appointed under an act framed especially to win their confidence, and afford them protection; and is placing them at the mercy of a board which I think I may safely say will be of his own particular bent of mind in conducting an investigation.
I know my right hon. friend will say he is not repealing the Combines Investigation Act. Certainly he is not repealing it, but by giving to the governor in council power to have investigations made by this special court rather than before the parties named in the Combines Investigation Act, and there empowered to investigate a combine, or before a judge as set out in the section of the Customs Tariff to which I have referred, he is doing something much more subtle and far reaching.
May I at this point give a concrete illustration. We will assume for the moment that the consumers of gasoline in this country entertain the view that the prices of gasoline are too high and that by virtue of protection which has been given by the present administration a combine or monopoly has come into existence which is operating to their detriment. At the present time under section 15 of the Customs Tariff an investigation may be held before a judge of the Exchequer Court or of some other court, or an investigation may be held under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. There are the two existing alternatives. My right hon. friend, under the legislation which he is now seeking to enact, could, were it passed, say, ''We will not permit an inquiry to take place before a member of the judiciary or under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, we will refer it to this board which we have created, and its decision will govern in the matter." I do not think I need go further in illustrating the danger underlying the proposed legislation as to the extent to which consumers and producers may find themselves, once it is enacted, without some of the security and protection afforded in existing legislation.
I come now to subsection 5 of section 5:
The board shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, and to compel them to give evidence, as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.

And subsection 6:
The board shall be a court of record, and have an official seal which shall be judicially noticed.
There can no longer be any mistake about what my right hon. friend has in mind: iit is the creation of a court; a court of very wide powers and authority, a new and very important court. In fact on the second reading of this bill my right hon. friend termed it a "federal court"; he spoke of those who would be members of it as judges; and on the resolution he said, "the board will be in every sense a judicial tribunal." Apart altogether from any such tribunal being necessary for mere purposes of investigation and fact-finding, I question very much the wisdom of trying to deal with social and economic problems by the establishment of courts of law or of attempting to find their solution along lines of procedure such as are adopted in the courts. There is a difference between what I might call legal phenomena- phenomena that has largely to do with questions of property, civil rights and the like, and economic phenomena which affect the wellbeing of individuals in their homes and in their several occupations. Matters of wages, of prices, ithe cost of living, and the like-all economic phenomena-are not of a character which can be determined satisfactorily in a court of law. Whether the economic problems to be solved relate to the tariff or to anything else affecting social conditions, a different method of investigation is desirable if the interests and well-being of the people are to be the primary consideration.
May I say that parliament has already carefully noted that fact. This is not the first Statute considered by this house which has to do with the investigation of economic phenomena, and the attempted solution of the problems to which they relate. There are already on the statutes several enactments framed with a view to aiding in the solution of social and economic problems. One of these statutes I might mention-the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, which was passed in 1907. That act, as hon. members know, has been amended on one or two occasions, but in its essentials it remains pretty much to-day what it was when it was enacted twenty-five years ago. The outstanding feature of the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act is that it provides for the creation of boards for the investigation of industrial disputes, but care is taken that the appointees to these boards are persons in whom the parties themselves have confidence. For example, the workingmen on their part are permitted to name a

Tarifj Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
member, the employers on their part are also permitted to name a member, they being the two parties primarily affected, and if those two members can agree upon the third member they nominate him; if not, the government does so. The board thus formed has all the powers of a court; it may summon witnesses, take evidence, compel the production of documents and the like. These powers are available if the necessity for their exercise arises. But what for a quarter of a century has been the experience of the operation of boards appointed under that legislation? The experience has been that those strictly legal features are seldom availed of, and that when availed of they are of very questionable value; that the real value of such boards from the point of view of investigation is that the parties concerned are able to meet together in the presence of each other, and in the presence of the public, and there bring out the essential facts which govern the question under investigation -for example, exact statements as to wages, hours and other conditions of employment prevailing in the industry affected here and elsewhere. The three parties meet together- the representatives of the employers, the employees and the government respectively- and endeavour by question and answer ;md examination of documents, premises and the like to get at the facts. If there is a dispute between the parties themselves as to one not telling the truth, then resort is had to the legal machinery for securing evidence under oath. But in practice that necessity has very seldom arisen. Boards of investigation have found it possible to get the fullest information by informal consideration of the questions in dispute.
Now, my right hon. friend has taken some 'exception to what he speaks of as the informal manner in which information pertaining to the tariff has been obtained. I cannot agree with him that if the object is primarily that of ascertaining the facts that object will not be furthered much more effectively by bringing into one room in the presence of others those who are primarily concerned, and have them then and there admit or deny what is essential in the investigation. Take, for example, an investigation into tariff matters affecting any particular industry. If those engaged in the industry and consumers who are affected by the prices of the products of the industry are all permitted to meet together in a common discussion, and all agree upon a statement of the facts, or if need be give testimony where controversy arises, what better method can there possibly be of eliciting the
truth in regard to any situation? That was the method under which the former board proceeded. Where there is an issue between the parties as to who is telling the truth, it may become necessary to resort to legal procedure. But I do submit that if the object be that of fact finding and getting at the truth of the situation, the less there is of putting men under oath and going through the formalities of court procedure, particularly in the case of persons who for the most part abhor the thought of being brought into court for any purpose, the better in the end it will be for the purposes an investigation is intended to serve.
One of the most successful chairman of boards of investigation and conciliation under the industrial disputes act was the late Professor Adam Shortt. As hon. members well know, he was chairman of a very large number of such boards. In nearly all cases Professor Shortt was able to ascertain the facts without resort to legal methods and by presenting the truth of the situation to the parties concerned to have them accept the findings that became obvious in the light of the truth. That was a great tribute not only to the professor, but an equally great tribute to human nature itself, in that it discloses that men when they recognize the truth are prepared to accept it; if parties having different interests, after being brought together, can come to agree on the facts, there ceases to be any longer much that requires settlement between them.
A day or two ago I read in the journal of the Canadian Bankers' Association of April, of this year, a brief editorial on Professor Shortt, which was published shortly after his death. I came across this paragraph, which is so pertinent that I ask permission to read it:
He was chairman of all the more important boards appointed during the first few years of the act. Here he made a distinctive contribution which was vital to the effective working of the legislation. He saw that if success was to be achieved the investigations of the board set up must work toward conciliation and not attempt to act as a court of arbitration. Still more, legal technicalities must not be allowed to interfere with the main business of arriving at an agreement. With this principle firmly grasped he successfully eliminated formal court procedure and attained remarkable success in a number of amicable agreements which were reached. The later history of the act proved abundantly his wisdom. It became later the custom to appoint judges and lawyers as presiding officers of boards and from that day the effectiveness of the legislation waned, and finally legal procedure entirely obliterated the legislation when the privy council held the act ultra vires in 1925.
3146	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that with respect to the economic phenomena of which account must be taken in dealing with tariff matters, there is no essential difference from that with respect to which account must be taken in dealing with questions of wages or prices in industrial disputes or as regards restrictions upon trade, because they are all inter-related; in fact it is in relation to questions of wages and prices and the like that the whole tariff discussion and controversy arises. I do submit that unless there is some motive beyond that of seeking to get at the facts, so that the government may be fully apprised of them in taking any steps in regard to the tariff, it would be much better to eliminate the court feature altogether and hold to a method of inquiry, which, up to the present, has proved so successful in different as well as allied fields. But the fact that my right hon. friend is creating a court to which he has given such powers makes convincingly clear, to my mind, an ulterior object other than that of mere investigation. What this objective is I shall endeavour to show in a few moments.
My right hon. friend is creating not a simple court with moderate powers; not an ordinary court like a county court; he is establishing one of the largest and most powerful courts in the country. He himself has termed it a federal court; it is a federal court with very large powers and very large remuneration so far as its members are concerned. Powers such as are given to this court are not needed at all for purposes of investigation in tariff matters. The bill makes no provision for the immediate publication of all the proceedings of the court, it does contain however provision for part of the work being carried on in secret. The bill gives to the court power to compel the taking of evidence under oath, if it so desires, but on the other hand it contains a provision which enables the members of the court to act on information which they obtain anywhere and in any way. I ask my right hon. friend:	What is the sense of including in
the bill a provision which enables the court to take evidence under oath if, at the same time, we are going to give to the members of the court the right to make equal use of information which they obtain in any way, at any time? In order that there may be no mistake about it let me read subsection (5) of section 5 of the act:
(5) The board shall have the same power to enforce the attendance of witnesses, and to compel them to give evidence, as is vested in any court of record in civil cases.

Then subsection (9) of the same section reads:
/9) For the purpose of any inquiry under this act, the board may obtain information, which in their judgment is authentic, otherwise than under the sanction of an oath or affirmation, and use apd act upon such information.
My right hon. friend is not only creating a court; he is creating a star chamber court. He is giving to this body the power to put a man on his oath, when it suits its members so to do. On the other hand they may gather information not in the nature of evidence on oath and act upon it if it suits them so to do. They can meet in secret if they desire so to do, and can prevent the publication of any of the evidence which they do not wish published. More than that, the bill goes the length of containing a provision which permits the arrest and imprisonment of individuals who happen to be present when the board may be discussing certain matters, or when certain matters are being discussed before the board if, perchance, at any time those individuals disclose some of the information which the board thinks it is in the public interest not to have disclosed. I ask whether you could have a court which is more in the nature of a star chamber court than one which carries on some of its proceedings in secret; one that can act on whatever information it pleases; one that need not, unless it so desires, report its proceedings, except in the form of a prepared report, and one which has given to it as well arbitrary powers of fine and imprisonment. Surely in matters of tariff, which affect simply the economic life of the people, we have not reached the point in 'Canada where we have to create boards in the nature of criminal courts in order to get information which will assist the government. I must say frankly to my hon. friend that after reading this legislation, one begins to wonder what, in his view, government is for; whether to his mind government is here to serve the interests of the people or whether it is here to create special courts for certain special interests, courts which will enable those interests to gain a control over an economic situation which is denied the rest of the people, and which could not be secured by them in any other way.
The other evening I spoke about where this whole legislation with respect to tariff matters is tending. I said my right hon. friend was creating an industrial feudalism in this country, I gave to the house certain of the incidents of feudalism of which I thought it would not be difficult to discover

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
the counterparts in the industrial world of today as it will more and more become if legislation of this kind goes through. One of the incidents of feudalism to which I then referred was the right claimed by the lords of the day not to be subject to the ordinary courts, but to have their own special courts in which matters affecting themselves and their special interests would be tried. Here we have a special court being created for special interests who are coming to this parliament for special favours, and we are giving to those who are seeking protection in this fashion the right to have their own court and to have all the protection a court of that kind throws around them. I say, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. friend is going pretty far in denying what are the fundamental rights of the people of the country when he goes the length in the special protection of specially favoured interests he does in this legislation.
Now may I refer to one or two other sections. Just in passing I draw attention to section 7 of subsection 5:
There shall be employed in the service of the board such officers, clerks and other employees as the governor in council may see fit to appoint, and they shall respectively receive such salaries or remuneration as may be approved by the governor in council.
Not only is my right hon. friend appointing the judges; he is also appointing the officers, clerks and other employees of this particular board or count. He is not allowing the Civil Service Commission to make the appointments; he is not allowing, as was the practice under the other board, the appointments to be made by the board itself. He is making all appointments himself, and just here may I say to my right hon. friend that when he was speaking on the resolution he gave this house to understand directly the opposite. He told the house that these officers, clerks and employees *would be appointed by the board; he did not say they would be appointed by himself. Now when the bill comes before the house we'see that it contains a provision that they shall be appointed by the governor in council instead of by the board. I hope my right hon. friend will give further consideration to this matter when we are discussing the section.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will my right hon. friend give the reference? I think he will find I was referring to the members of the board. .


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is at page 1639 of Hansard, and reads:
Mr. Bradette: Will the employees of the board be appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
Mr. Bennett: They will be appointed by the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The governor in council makes the formal appointments; the board is intended to make the recommendations, if that is what my right hon. friend means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take the bill as drafted to mean that what was done in the case of the previous board will be varied. In that case the board itself recommended who the appointees were to be, it was not the governor in council that made the selections. Certainly the view taken by hon. members of the house when my right hon. friend made his reply was that it would be the board, not the governor in council, which would make the selections. The bill is providing not that the board shall make the appointments but that the governor in council shall appoint everyone who has anything to do with the board which is being called into existence.
May I again point out that my remarks all along the way have been directed to these provisions as exemplifying the intention of the government to go much farther in this legislation than simply to appoint a board to investigate for the purpose of assisting the government in the formulation of tariffs or matters incidental thereto.
There is another section of the bill which will make clear to hon. members whether there is the necessity of going the length to which this legislation goes, if investigating and getting at the facts is all that my right hon. friend has in mind. Section 8 subsection (1) reads as follows:
Every member who has served on the board for a period of at least ten years may be granted an annuity for the term of his natural life equal to one-fourth of the annual salary received by him during such period, and if he lias served for any period less than ten years but more than five years, he may be granted an annuity equal to one-fifth of the annual salary received by him during such period.
Subsection (2) reads:
The chairman of the board shall be paid an annual salary of twelve thousand dollars, and the other two members shall each be paid an annual salary of ten thousand dollars.
Let us consider these salaries for a moment. The members of this board, which is to be simply a farct finding body, are to receive $12,000 and $10,000 annually. The chairman is to receive $12,000 per year for a ten year appointment, and in addition to that, at the end of the ten years he is to receive an annuity of $3,000. The other members are each to receive $10,000 per year, and an
3148	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
annuity of one-quarter of that amount. If the members of the board serve for any period less than ten years but more than five years they become entitled to an annuity to be paid for the rest of their lives. No minister of the crown to-day receives the salary which is to be paid to the chairman of this board, in fact, no minister of the crown receives the salary and annuity being paid to the other two members of the board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except the Prime Minister.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should have excepted the Prime Minister because he is always an exception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He was.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point out to the house that ministers of the crown receive nothing in the way of an annuity. If it is possible to find hon. gentlemen who are prepared to accept the position of a minister of the crown for $10,000 per year, without any annuity, to take an office, precarious as it is, and with all that it involves in the way of work from morn to eve and long after, I fail to see why it should be necessary to pay these very large salaries to the members of this board unless something of a quite exceptional character is going to be expected of them. There is nothing in investigating and factfinding with respect to prices, wages, costs and the like which merits the payment of these salaries. The type of man best qualified to carry on the work of investigation is the trained economist. I think the house will agree with me that men of the type of the late Dr. Adam Shortt, men who hold distinguished positions as professors of political economy in our universities, or men specially ' trained in other Spheres, are of the type best qualified for positions of the kind. I am quite sure that the services of men of this type could be obtained by the state at salaries similar in amount to those paid by the universities. My right hon. friend is going pretty far in establishing a board which rivals the supreme court as far as salaries of its members and some of its powers are concerned. I believe it goes farther than the Board of Railway Commissioners and the Civil Sendee Commission. I should say that my right hon. friend has gone quite the limit.
I come now to the next portion of the act, which makes it abundantly clear that the purpose of this legislation is to appoint a board for other than fact finding purposes. Part II of the bill entitled "Tariff Board substituted for Board of Customs," and section 11 reads as follows:

(1)	From and after a date to be fixed by the governor in council, all the powers, functions and duties of the board of customs shall be assigned to and be transacted by the tariff board constituted by this act.
(2)	Wherever in any act of the parliament of Canada, or in any regulations, or orders made thereunder, the board of customs is mentioned or referred to, the tariff board shall in each and every case be substituted therefor.
Subsection (4) reads as follows:
(4) The board shall have such powers and perform such duties under this part as are assigned to it by any act of the parliament of Canada or by the governor in council.
While that section may serve a very useful purpose, I can see where it may also serve a very dangerous one. I take it that my right hon. friend is establishing a board which will be in accord with his own views on tariff matters. He proposes to make that board a court which will have the last word in respect to the interpretation of statutes and orders in council, and in respect to matters of administration of the customs of this country. As matters now stand, there is at least an appeal from the board of customs to the governor in council, but in his legislation my right hon. friend does not provide for any such appeal. It is true that on the second reading he said that he was open-minded as to whether or not there should be an appeal to the governor in council, but he has made no provision therefor. I hope he will leave at least that much to his possible successors. I do not suppose it makes much difference while he himself is in office, but in respect to these matters I do not think that there should be any board which would have the last and final word with respect to the interpretation to be placed on the legislation of this parliament with respect to tariff and other revenue matters or any orders in council passed by the government under authority of this parliament with respect to the same. I would again direct the attention of the house to subsection 4, which reads:
The board shall have such powers and perform such duties under this part as are assigned to it by any act of the parliament of Canada or by the governor in council.
That subsection gives the governor in council the power to assign to the board special duties, and permits the board to go ahead and interpret tariff legislation under those special duties. As yet we do not know what powers the governor in council may give this board under this particular subsection. We are being asked to allow a board that is going to have the final say in matters of administration of the tariff, to be permitted to do so in the light of any powers which may yet be

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
given, to it by the governor in council. It is plain that the purpose of this legislation is quite other than that of appointing a board merely to investigate and advise concerning tariff matters.
There are other grounds from which I draw this inference. One of them is found in the explanatory note in the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Prepared by the law
clerks.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Prepared by the law clerks, I assume under instructions from the Prime Minister or Minister of Finance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the right hon. gentleman knows that before explanatory notes are made to bills, those bills have been finally approved by council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not taking any exception to the explanatory notes as incorrect. I am on the contrary assuming them to be correct, but if I am wrong my right hon. friend will correct me.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am stating how they are prepared.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The fact is that my right hon. friend is a little nervous about the matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There must be in his mind something which I have touched upon at the moment. The explanatory notes read:
The purpose of this bill is to create a tariff board.
First of all, my right hon. friend will notice that the word "advisory" is omitted. It is a tariff board, not an advisory board on tariff, as was the case with the board he abolished. It is a board which, as he himself has said, is to be in the nature of a court. Then the explanatory note says:
It is not the intention to delegate to the board the duty and responsibility resting upon the government of originating bills for the raising of revenue, which will remain precisely as at present. The intention is to secure, as a result of the work of the board, a constantly increasing body of information which will he of service to the government and parliament.
I ask the house to notice just what is expressed in that explanatory note:
It is not the intention to delegate to the board the duty and responsibility resting upon the government of originating bills for the raising of revenue, which will remain precisely as at present.
The originating of bills for the raising of revenue could not by any conceivable means rest anywhere else than with the government and parliament. Obviously that could not be done by anybody other than the government with the assistance of parliament. But in the interpretation of that paragraph- and -here I hope my right hon. friend will tell me whether or not I am misjudging him -one has to have in mind the view that my right hon. friend entertains with respect to the tariff. He takes the view that the tariff may be a tax; he also takes the view that the tariff may not be a tax. I think I am right in saying that. He has repeatedly made that statement, and his words will be found in Hansard of the last special session. So far as the tariff is being considered as a tax, it will be a matter affecting the revenues, and my right hon. friend says: Now, so far as the revenue is concerned, certainly parliament will continue to deal with that. But what about the functions of this board when the tariff is being viewed, not as something concerned with revenue but as something in the nature of protection to industry apart from revenue altogether? There, I submit, is where we discover the whole purpose and intent of this legislation; it is to form a board in the nature of a court which will maintain the protective feature in all matters pertaining to the tariff. That is the object of it; my right hon. friend knows it, and I do not think he will deny it. It is important that the house should know and understand that the aim of this legislation is to call into being a federal court, give it, as I have said, all the powers of a star chamber, appoint its members for a period of ten years so that their tenure of office will outrun that of one or two parliaments and possibly three, and have them placed there in control over the tariff as it affects prices, wages, cost of production and the like, in order to see that at all times and at all costs the protective principle is retained in the tariff and matters related thereto.
I wish to say just a word on this point to some of the supporters of my right hon. friend on the other side who come from other parts of the dominion than those which it is hoped most to benefit by this legislation. I speak particularly to some of those who come from the maritime provinces, and some who come from the west. I do not ask you to cease to give your support to your leader, but I suggest, in the interests of those whom you represent and your own interests, having regard to the future, you take occasion to point out just what the people of the constituencies from which you come are likely to feel
3150	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
with respect to any court that is permanently established in this country for the express purpose of maintaining the protective principle in our tariff.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: My right hon. friend might leave out the word "express." It does not appear in that statement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, it does
not; it was very carefully concealed. But will my hon. friend deny the truth of what I am saying?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I certainly do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: His leader will not.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I am sure he will.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am sure he will not. That is just the difference between certain hon. gentlemen opposite. They do not agree as to the meaning of their own policy. The Prime Minister has not hesitated to say that his whole fiscal policy is based on the idea of protection. He has said so in Great Britain and Canada. He has said that the tariff will be framed to that end, namely, to see that the protective principle is maintained.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The board is not designed
to maintain it, and there is no subtle concealment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But the legislation is introduced with the idea that the board is to see that the protective principle is maintained.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That arises in the imagination of the right hon. gentleman.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
question about what I have said. The country will soon agree with me.
Let us consider the remainder of the reference made to the board as a fact finding body. The explanatory note says:
The intention is to secure, as a result of the work of the board, a constantly increasing body of information which will be of service to the government and parliament.
In other words, a sort of by-product of the work of the board is to be the information they collect while they are seeing to it that the protective principle is maintained intact. That is the significance of the legislation which we now have before us.
As I have said, this legislation to be understood aright must be interpreted in the light of the policies of my right hon. friend as he himself has stated them in parliament and throughout the country. In Great Britain

he made it quite clear that the aim of his policy was protection for the industries of this country to the extent of keeping out of Canada commodities or goods which can be produced or manufactured here. He made equally clear in his statement on the budget that one of our first duties was to see that goods did not come in from foreign countries if they could be produced or manufactured in Canada. He will not deny that. All this legislation with respect to creating a court to study costs of production, prices and the like has to do with the objective which my right hon. friend has in mind. So far as he and his administration are concerned, he may with the object he has in view be quite right in doing what he has done. But I come now to the really serious part of the matter, which is that my right hon. friend is seeking to bind not only his own administration but subsequent administrations. He is seeking not only to bind this parliament with respect to this legislation but to inflict its provisions upon subsequent parliaments for at least a number of years to come.
Just at this point may I pause to make clear why it is that some of us feel as strongly as we do and why we believe the country will feel very strongly about legislation of this kind being fastened irrevocably on Canada for a term of years. It may be thought that when my right hon. friend goes to the country in due time, should the issue be one relating to the tariff, and the party opposed to him be returned to power, all they would have to do would be to repeal this legislation and the evil of it would be removed. That is what I have no doubt is generally believed, but may I point out to hon. members and the country that legislation can be repealed only by both houses of parliament and by the assent of the governor general. May I point out further that at the present time the position of political parties in the other house is that both parties are at the moment just about evenly represented. In the course of the next few years the appointments which will be made by my right hon. friend to the Senate will all be appointments from the Conservative party in this country. That means that should another government be returned, even if it desire to do so, and even if the question of repeal be made an issue in the election, it cannot repeal this legislation, because any proposal to effect repeal would require the approval of both houses of parliament. I say that my right hon. friend has no right so to bind subsequent governments or subsequent parliaments. If the legislation were not of the character it is,

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
the matter would not be so serious. But since it is legislation aimed at actually shackling the country for years to come with my right hon. friend's particular brand of high protection it becomes a matter for serious consideration whether this [DOT] house should permit legislation to be passed under which a term of ten years is fixed during which members of the board constituted by it shall hold office.
I want to point out to my right hon. friend how absolutely unfair anything of that kind is. All questions relating to the tariff are matters of policy. I am sure that my right hon. friend whatever he may say or do will agree with me that if in matters of tariff policy a government is seeking advice, it is entitled to have as advisers those in whom it has confidence. My right hon. friend will not deny that his government is a protectionist government, and that those who are opposed to him are not high protectionists, that those opposed to him, if they believe in protection, believe in low protection; that for the most part they view the tariff rather from the point of view of revenue than from the protective principle. How then can he justify under circumstances which may arise asking an administration that believes in low tariffs or tariffs for revenue to accept for purposes of adlvice on tariff matters a court that has been created by himself, believing, as he does, in high protection? How can he ask an administration opposed to his own to allow such a court to have a final say with regard to the interpretation of its policies in many details?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It has not the final say.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have pointed out that it has.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is in your imagination.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is quite mistaken. Will he say that transferring to this new board all the powers that are to-day expressed by the customs board is not giving it a final say similar to that which the customs board has? He knows that it is.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It is not final so far as
the customs board is concerned, but my right hon. friend was speaking of the tariff board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is what
I am saying. This legislation takes away the right which exists to-day of an appeal from the customs board.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The governor in council,
as a court of appeal, is non-partisan.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend this question: Would he accept as a body of advisers for his term of
office a body appointed by myself and those who sit around me were we in office and I left it to him as a legacy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had to.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: He says that
he had to, but he did not. We left him a tariff board, composed of very able men, a board which had functioned efficiently, and his first act was to abolish that board.


Mr. COTNAM:: That was not a nonpartisan board.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not discussing whether it was partisan or not. I submit tha/t any government would be derelict in its duty to its own party if it did not select as its advisers on tariff masters men in whom it had confidence, and whose advice it was prepared to trust. It is so much a matter of common sense that no one can dispute the assertion for a moment. My right hon. friend by his very act in abolishing the tariff board that was in existence when he came into office completely answers the contention he seeks to make that there is any justification for naming a board that will continue in office for a longer period than "at pleasure." He has shown by his own act that he himself believes that "at pleasure" is the only length of time that a board of this character should be permitted to hold office. I put this to my right hon. friend: Assume that you have two parties, one believing strongly in protection, and the other believing in tariff for revenue. Is it fair that a protectionist government should be advised by a tariff-for-revenue board, or that a tariff-for-revenue government should be advised by a high protectionist board? I think the fair and square view which the public is likely to take of this matter will be sufficient to make clear the injustice of the present position which my right hon. friend is taking.
But may I give to my right hon. friend an authority which I hope that he at least will accept, as to the wrong principle which he is seeking to have adopted in this legislation? The present Prime Minister when in opposition gave to the house and the country his views with respect to what in the matter of having one parliament bind another was sound in principle. In his statement the other day my right hon. friend went much farther than simply having one parliament bind another. He says he believes that one government should have the right to bind another. "In my judgment it is essential that the board should hold office beyond the term of office of a government," were his
3152	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
exact words. He believes he should enact legislation which will bind subsequent governments. I say that that is going very, very much too far. If he had said, bind subsequent parliaments, he would have been going pretty far; but when he says, bind subsequent governments, he goes altogether too far.
When I was in the position which my right hon. friend is occupying to-day, I brought in a measure to appropriate to the Federal District Commission a sum of money, not a very large sum, for a period of thirty years. The amount was for the purpose of maintaining the park and driveway system of the capital over which the Federal District Commission has control. Every member knows that as long as Ottawa remains the capital there will have to be a sum of money put aside for the maintenance of its parks and drives. All we were asking was that the sum to be put aside should be guaranteed for a number of years, so that there would be no doubt in the mind of anyone as to that work being properly cared for. Speaking on that bill, my right hon. friend laid down the principle which in respect of binding subsequent parliaments he said should govern. Let me read what he said. It is rather a coincidence that he was assisted on that occasion by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), who on this same matter helped out on the declaration of principle. I quote from Hansard, page 2352, of the debates of April 24, 1928. Here the present Prime Minister lays down the principle which should govern with respect to binding a subsequent parliament or a subsequent government:
I cannot think it quite consonant with the ideas of the right hon. gentleman as heretofore expressed that this parliament should bind the hands of future parliaments. I am quite aware of the fact that it would be quite competent for succeeding parliaments to change that figure to forty, or to ten; they would have that power, but a vested interest is acquired when a statute of this kind is passed by parliament; the commission naturally expects that that is the end of it.
May I point this out to my right hon. friend: He said that a succeeding parliament could change the figure. I say that a succeeding House of Commons, of a political complexion different from that of the present, could not, if my right hon. friend's friends in the Senate wished to prevent them from so doing, alter this statute relating to the tariff -not until the political complexion of the other chamber also changed. My right hon. friend continues:
I suggest that instead of making provision for thirty years we endeavour to deal with this matter during the lifetime of a parliament. It is true that one or two sessions of this parlia-

ment will have passed, but I think the right hon. gentleman would be quite within the general constitutional practice if he said, "I desire that a given sum shall be available for this commission during the lifetime of the parliament over which I am the directing head." But when you ask parliament to bind its hands for thirty years I cannot help but think that is going too far, and that it is not quite consistent with the general principles under which we conduct our government.
After listening to my right hon. friend the government decided to change to fifteen years instead of thirty, the period during which the appropriation to the Federal District Commission should be made. The bill came before the house again on April 26, 1928, and on the motion for third reading the hon. member for Lincoln moved an amendment. His words are to be found at page 2397 of Hansard of April 26, 1928, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that in respect to this bill the Prime Minister would have accepted the proposal of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) to limit the period during which the annual payments are to be made to five years instead of fifteen. My chief objection to the bill is that this parliament through a commission, is making commitments for fifteen years vdiich in the ordinary course of events will cover the lifetime of possibly three, if not four parliaments. I think the principle is wrong, and I am surprised that it should be seriously proposed, especially after what the Prime Minister said in this house when in opposition and since he became head of the government.


James Dew Chaplin: Did my right hon. friend follow the advice?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To give to a commission the expenditure of moneys over a period of fifteen years is to my mind proposterous, and to take away from future parliaments the right to say how that money shall be spent, I think is also preposterous. Therefore, I move an amendment as follow's, seconded by Mr. Manion.


James Dew Chaplin: I should like to ask my
right hon. friend the leader of the opposition if he followed that advice?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At the moment I cannot say whether I did or not. Whether I did or did not, however, could not alter the principle which at that time my hon. friend laid down, nor would it affect the present situation.


James Dew Chaplin: Absolutely true, but why quote it now?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am quoting the principle which my hon. friend then laid down as the only right principle where the matter is one which may affect policy.


James Dew Chaplin: My right hon. friend does not follow it.

Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have not
said we do not follow it. I shall now read the amendment.
That the bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to committee of the whole with instructions that they have power to amend by striking out the word "fifteen" in line eighteen and substituting the word "five" therefor.
My right hon. friend who is now Prime Minister was not content with having laid down a principle on the second reading. After the hon. member for Lincoln had spoken the present Prime Minister again asserted the principle that should govern. I am directing my remarks to the principle which should govern as respects the bill now before the house.
On the third reading of the bill my right hon. friend's remarks are quoted at pages 2399 and 2400 of Hansard as follows:
Personally I have held a very strong view for some considerable time as to the undesirability of any legislature or parliament tying the hands of succeeding legislatures or parliaments with respect to annual expenditures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend now says, "Hear, hear." The quotation from Hansard continues:
That idea may or may not be sound.
Is my right hon. friend going to quibble? Does he say that the expenditure in connection with the proposed tariff board will not be annual? We shall have to vote annually the moneys for the purposes of carrying on the tariff board. I submit that a quibble of that nature is not worthy of him. Here it is not only expenditures but powers which are involved. Let me repeat what he said:
Personally I have had a very strong view for some considerable time as to the undesirability of any legislature or parliament tying the hands of succeeding legislatures or parliaments with respect to annual expenditures. That idea may or may not be sound, but I do not think that when matters of policy are affected-and matters of policy always are affected in relation to grants of public moneys-this parliament should tie the hands of two or three succeeding parliaments.
I direct the attention of my right hon. friend to his own words.
.... when matters of policy are affected- and matters of policy always are affected in relation to grants of public moneys-this parliament should tie the hands of two or three succeeding parliaments. Not denying that parliament has always the right to repeal legislation, I submit that it is undesirable to create vested rights with respect to legislation; and the undesirability of such a policy can never be more apparent than it is in this particular measure.
Then my right hon. friend said:
I cannot but think that the principle involved-the principle which the right hon. gentleman when in opposition always contended should be applied-is the soundest possible principle with respect to the expenditure of public money. No parliament should create a condition which leaves a succeeding parliament under the necessity of either repealing existing legislation with respect to which vested interests or rights may have arisen, or of carrying on regardless of the views of that succeeding parliament, simply because the preceding government has done what is being done in this case.
In conclusion my right hon. friend said:
As I say, it is with regret that one has to deal with this matter as a matter of principle with respect to this particular legislation, and I have endeavoured to assure the Prime Minister that it is because -we believe a principle should be laid down which will be of very great value in this country at this time, when there is a tendency to entrust public moneys in large sums to commissions, that we are impelled by whatever sense of duty may actuate us in the discharge of our obligations here to move this amendment to the third reading of the bill.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Did not the right hon. gentleman then assert a principle contrary to what he is advocating to-day?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, he did not do anything of the kind. My right hon. friend was good enough to say that when in opposition I advocated the principle I am now advocating.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But what was the principle advocated by my right hon. friend on that occasion: I remember the debate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: At that tame, in fact, no question of policy was involved. May I invite the attention of hon. members to what occasioned these strong declarations of principle. At that time there was under consideration the question of the appropriation of a sum of money for the purpose of maintaining under the Federal District Commission certain improvements in the city of Ottawa, expenditures which as a matter of course would be made year after year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not wholly for maintenance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That statement of principle was not made in connection with tariffs, which after all is one of the most controversial and most important questions affecting the life of a nation. At that time my right hon. friend made his statement of principle on a matter of a comparatively trivial nature, that of voting a certain lump sum of money for a period of years for work which in the very nature of things would be



Tariff Board-Mr. Mackenzie King
carried on for years to come and which did not involve far-reaching policy, if policy at all, in any way. At the present time however my right hon. friend seeks to deny effect being given to the will of the people with respect to their decision on a question of policy affecting the tariff and failing support of himself at a general election to make it impossible for that will to be carried out after he himself may be out of office. I say it is an entirely wrong principle and I shall state the true position very frankly to my right hon. friend. No parliament or no government has the right with respect to any fiscal question to seek to bind any subsequent parliament or subsequent government. I do not think a sounder principle than that can be stated, nor can it be denied. No parliament or government has the right to bind a subsequent parliament or government with respect to fiscal matters. The taxing power whether it be in relation to the tariff or other forms of taxation belongs to those whom the people send to represent them in the House of Commons, and this right cannot be cuntailed by any parliament or government as respects its successor. In the case of a succeeding parliament there is the possibility that the same administration may be returned to office. In such a case the seriousness of a succeeding parliament being bound to a particular course of action is not so great. But when there will be -and there certainly will be-in the next election a tariff issue, for the government of the day to attempt as respects matters affecting tariff policy in a vital way to bind a subsequent government, regardless of what the will of the people as expressed in an election may be, is an action of the most arbitrary character conceivable.
I ask my right hon. friend and hon. gentlemen opposite to be just in a matter of this kind1. The amendment does not say, "You shall not have the right to appoint whatever kind of board you please, and you shall not have the right to give to that board whatever powers you please to carry out your policy." On the contrary the amendment says, in effect, "You may have all these things for the time you are in office, but do not attempt to shackle and manacle future parliaments and future administrations by making it impossible for future parliaments or administrations to change the law, as will be the case under this legislation even should the will of the people as expressed at the polls give a mandate for (the repeal of legislation of the kind."
May I say to my right hon. friend-and he should know this-that regardless of his legislation, the Liberal administration when returned to power will not be bound by any

such provisions as those he is now attempting to place in the act, if it has reason not to have confidence in those who constitute the tribunal he is attempting to form. I do not wish to reflect on any gentleman who may be named as members of the tariff board. If those gentlemen are anxious to be impartial and to be fair, I think they themselves would prefer that their tenure of office would be "at pleasure" instead of fixed for a period of ten years. If the members of the tariff board prove to be fair and impartial, I venture to say that a succeeding government might be very glad to avail itself of their services. But a sueeedang government could not be expected to avail itself of the services of those whom it does not feel it can trust, in whose judgment it has no confidence, who it knows take a point of view entirely opposed to that which it entertains. Any government holding such an opinion of its advisers could not be expected to retain them in office for one minute. What would be said of the executive itself were it to seek to retain office without having the support and confidence of the members who sit behind it? If it is necessary for the government of the day to have the support and confidence of a majority in the House of Commons, surely it is equally necessary for the government of the day that has to do with the presenting of policies to parliament to have the fullest confidence of the body which is advising them on matters pertaining to its particular policies. I say if a body of the kind were forced upon a subsequent administration, that administration would be justified in not voting the salaries of its personnel. I think this is the time to make that clear, and I hope that any person who accepts a position on this board, in the event of the legislation passing in its present form, will realize that should there be a change of administration and a Liberal government come into office, and the members of the board not enjoy its confidence, they may expect to find their term of office terminated by no salaries being voted. That apparently is the only way in which the rights of the people can be upheld in this matter as it now stands; and I say to my right hon. friend that when he, as Prime Minister, seeks to usurp the rights of the people of this country by dictating as to what body Shall govern in respect of any matters pertaining to tariff and taxation, he is going back to a period in history which some day, not very far distant, he will learn the people have not forgotten, even if he himself has.
May I say to my right hon. friend that I think he would be well-advised to follow some of the advice which his own Minister

Tariff Board-Mr. Manion
of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) has been giving at the expense of the treasury to the people of this country. We were reviewing the other evening a series of letters sent out to the press of Canada in the nature of what is called an "advertising campaign," all of which was paid for out of the treasury, and all of which was intended to further the protectionist policy of this administration. One of these letters was headed "Remember the golden rule." I wonder if my right hon. friend recalls that rule. He was at one time, I believe, a Sunday school teacher-he has not lost all his capacity for preaching even yet-and I give him credit, as I always do, for being sincere. Therefore, I ask him: Won't he remember the golden rule and apply it in this matter that affects so vitally the well-being of the people, which bears so directly on how they are to be taxed through the tariff? Let him do unto others as he would that they should do unto him, and as, in fact, they are doing unto him. We are allowing him to have hds tariff board, to shape it in the way he pleases, to give to it whatever powers he pleases. All we ask is that he shall see to it that the appointees to this board be not appointed for a decade, but that the appointment be at pleasure, so that if the board does not merit the confidence of another administration, that administration will not be bound to retain its services for purposes of advice on tariff matters and for the interpretation of tariff laws, orders in council and regulations governing the administration of customs in our land.
May I conclude what I have to say by again drawing the attention of hon. members from whatever part of the country they come to their responsibility with respect to this legislation, if they undertake in this parliament at this time to seek to bind subsequent parliaments and subsequent governments with respect to what shall be determined in matters of fiscal policy. The people have the right to tax themselves as they please through their representatives in parliament, and any administration that seeks to take away from the people's representatives in parliament their rights to determine what taxes shall be imposed through the tariff, is usurping the most essential of the powers and functions of responsible government.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, had not three or four of my hon. friends on the other side come in during the last few moments I might have come to the conclusion that I was being boycotted by the opposite party. Of course, I may say quite frankly that I have no very great hope of converting hon. gentlemen opposite to my viewpoint, so probably it does not really matter very much whether or not they are in the house.
This afternoon I listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). It was a long speech; in fact the right hon. gentleman seems to be developing the habit of making long speeches He has made three set speeches this year, one lasting for three and a half hours, one for four and a half hours and the speech this afternoon taking a little over two hours, if I noticed the clock correctly when he rose. I do not like to see him setting a bad example like that, particularly to the younger members of the house. I believe his speech this afternoon would have been very much better had he boiled down his argument and taken a shorter time, and naturally I like to see him make a good speech.
During the time he spoke he used some words which I do not think were quite proper. He said on one occasion that my right hon. leader (Mr. Bennett) had some ulterior motive in introducing this legislation. He said the Prime Minister was protecting special interests, and he also said that he. the right hon. leader of the opposition, and his party were looking after the interests and the wellbeing of the people of Canada. He has a habit of saying that; the right hon. gentleman seems to think he is anointed by the Lord to protect the ordinary people against the machinations of the party on this side of the house.


Mr. YOUNG:: We need somebody like that.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps we do, but we will not find him on that side of the house. To say, sir, that my right hon. leader had some ulterior motive, or was protecting special interests, is not quite in accordance with the rules of debate or with a logical argument such as the right hon. leader of the opposition was attempting to put forward this afternoon. Finally, he made what I would call a sectional appeal to the people of the east and the west; he asked them to come to the conclusion that this was an attempt to shackle them with
* 3156
Tariff Board-Mr. Manion

the principle of high and higher protection, and he urged that they should rise in their might and vote down this legislation.
Then the right hon. gentleman went on to say that by this legislation the government was going to commit the terrible crime of binding subsequent governments, yet in the very next breath he complained that we did not accept the tariff commission which he appointed a few years ago by order in council. After all, this tariff commission will be appointed by the parliament of Canada, by legislation. His appointments were made by order in council, and he claimed that we should have accepted his appointments made in that way, while he should not accept our appointments which will be made by legislation passed by this house. It seems to me he was rather illogical. The chairman of the late tariff board-and I say this .with no intention of giving offence-retired before the last election and ran as a Liberal candidate. Certainly he was not one whom you *could say was non-partisan. One of the other members, Mr. McKenzie, I believe, retired to take a position with the Manitoba government. Right Hon. George P. Graham retired some time before that, and Mr. Lambert also retired. As far as I can see it was a sort of roving or moving board; its personnel changed so frequently that there was no continuity to it, and I do not mind saying quite frankly that when Mr. Moore retired last year, just before the election, to run on behalf of the Liberals, I found some difficulty, as I find some difficulty now, in saying just who were left on that board. Mr. Moore was the outstanding member of the board, and I find a great deal of difficulty in saj'ing just who were left.


James Dew Chaplin: Deachman was left.


Robert James Manion: Yes, perhaps that is so.
Another rather new principle was enunciated by the right hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon when he said that his party would not be bound by this legislation if they came into power. He seems to forget that after all, whether he likes it or not, this government was eleoted by an overwhelming majority of the people of this country, and we have a right to make laws for the people. It is, indeed, a new and strange principle for him to enunciate in this house when he takes the attitude that if we pass a law he will not abide by it. The right hon. gentleman even went further; to use his own words, he said that this board was appointed for the purpose of furthering the government's protectionist views. Those were the very words he used. Might I just ask him this: If we only wished IMr. Manion.]
to further our own views, which are protectionist, why should we have appointed a board at all? My hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) shakes his head and says we should not; he is right.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I did
not say that.


Robert James Manion: That is the only conclusion at which I can arrive.


William Duff: Pass the buck, that is all.


Robert James Manion: I know of no reason why, if we wanted only to further our views, we should have appointed a board of any kind. We might just as well have done it without appointing a board at all. That would have been more logical, more sensible and more straightforward; it would have been the right attitude to take if we only wanted to further our views. But by appointing this board it is obvious we are acting in the interests of the people in general and for the purpose of getting the facts and submitting them to the people and to the parliament of Canada.
The right hon. leader of the opposition continually takes an attitude in this house which seems to indicate that he has forgotten that there was an election a iittle less than a year ago, by which he was asked, very politely but very emphatically, to retire. He rises in the house continually and speaks as though he thinks he is speaking for the people of this country. With all due deference, I submit that my right hon. leader speaks for the people of this country at the present time.
Then the right hon. gentleman spoke of secret hearings; he said that these hearings were to be secret, and he emphasized that point rather strongly. However, it is obvious from a reading of the bill that the hearings are not to be in secret; in no place does it say they are. It does state that certain information will be considered confidential, and rightly so. If you are to go into the internal business affairs of manufacturing or producing corporations of any kind, that information should not be broadcast. Take the wheat pool, for example; if we wished to go into their affairs for some reason or other, or if the government inquired into the internal affairs and confidential matters of any other corporation, that information should be kept confidential and should not be given to others competing in the same fields. Section 6 reads:
Whenever a report has been made under this act, a copy thereof and a copy of the evidence, if any, taken, and of the information obtained (except such evidence and information as was of a confidential character under subsection ten of section five hereof) in connection there-

with shall be laid before parliament by the minister fifteen days after the opening of the next session thereafter, or within fifteen days after the making of the report if parliament is then in session.
In other words, there is nothing secret about this board or its action.
The right hon. member dealt with many details of this legislation which I think might well have been left until the bill was being considered in committee of the whole. So far as his remarks are concerned, may I say that to my mind he simply put up a number of straw men in order to be able to knock them down. He took the attitude of supporting the much abused and oppressed common people who he apparently felt were dependent wholly upon him. He would not permit our so-called "vicious" attempts to interfere with their rights and to wipe out all forms of democracy. He would demolish this attempt of ours which has never taken place. After all, this legislation is not like the laws of the Medes and Persians; if there are changes needed later on, those changes can be made. This legislation can be amended at the proper time and on the proper occasion, if it is found that certain portions of it are not working out as expected.
In his very excellent speech the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) admitted, as did his right hon. leader, that some kind of tariff board is required in this country, and apparently it is only as to the form of the board that there is disagreement. A tariff board of some kind is required to assist ministers of finance. Any hon. member who has been in this house for some years will realize that a minister of finance has not the time or opportunity to go into all the details of a tariff-or to deal with those details as they should be dealt with. He must have some form of fact finding board to help him come to proper conclusions.
The purpose of this board is to obtain facts and to lay those facts not only before the Minister of Finance and the government but before the parliament of Canada. No one will suggest that any government can evade the responsibility of making a tariff for this country. No matter what government is in power, whether it be the present government or the government of my right hon. friend, that government must take the responsibility of whatever tariff changes are made. That responsibility cannot be transferred to any board. The hon. member for Hants-Kings said that this board would "dictate" to the government, but I do not think there is any indication that such will be the case. I do not think this proposed legislation would permit the board to dictate to the government
Tariff Board-Mr. Manion
of my right hon. friend if he should come back into power a few years hence. It is a fact finding and advisory board entirely.
As was so well stated by my right horn leader, another function of this board will be to compare the costs of production in Canada with the costs prevailing in other countries. It has been pointed out already that it may be very difficult to get the actual' facts, but it should be easy to obtain approximate comparisons. For example, one would not need to be a great economist to know that when Russia is paying wages of $30 per month-there are a few exceptions in the case of experts from outside-and then takes back from the worker much of that wage for different purposes, leaving probably only two-thirds, Russia can produce much cheaper than those countries in which high wages and high standards of living prevail. By the way, I noticed a rather interesting statement in the Montreal Star of Saturday evening, to the effect that the United States is working out a method whereby on January 1 next they will put on a watertight embargo against goods from Russia.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
turned down the hon. gentleman's government on that, did they not?


Robert James Manion: I do not think they had an opportunity of either turning us down or putting us up. That policy proves to a large extent the rightness of the policy adopted 'by this government in regard to Russia. The reason the United States is taking this stand is because they have discovered that the cost of production in the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republics is based upon practical slavery or prison labour. The United States have found that they cannot compete with that type of production and keep up their own Standard of living.
As we all know, there are still other countries which can produce very cheaply. One does not need to be a great economist to know that proper tariffs are necessary in order to compete with some of the central European countries. Japan is another example ; she can produce some goods at a much lower cost than Canada, and unless we wish to lower our standard of living by lowering the rates of wages, there is no possibility of our competing with them. Therefore, it is a simple matter to compare, at least approximately, the costs of production in other countries with those of Canada.
I have been a member of this house for some years and it appears to me that in the past the tariff has been worked out too much on the hit and miss principle. Such was as
Tariff Board-Mr. Manion

clearly the case when my right hon. friend was in power, because for one year at least, from 1925 to 1928, he was forced to depend upon the Progressive group as to whether or not he would stay in power. It was certainly hit and miss during those days. In the past it has been a question of deputations, and pressure of various kinds being put upon the government in power. Every government is affected to a certain extent by the pressure of the representations made, and I believe that a tariff board is absolutely necessary in a country such as Canada where the two major parties believe in a protective policy. The only difference of opinion is as to the degree of protection.


Mr. MORAND:: In some cases it is a question of expediency.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Morand) states that in some cases it is a question of expediency. No doubt that was the case when my right hon. friend was leading a minority group and holding power with the support of the other minority groups in the house.


John Vallance: The hon. member should speak for himself.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to my hon. friend that he follow his own advice. There is no other hon. member in this house-I say this in a friendly spirit-who so often speaks for others while they are speaking.
The Conservative party was elected because of its protectionist principles. Those principles were advocated from end to end of Canada during the last elections, as well as during every other campaign since I have been a member of this house, and I have been here during the last five campaigns. We sincerely believe that the protectionist policy is the only policy which will permit this country to compete with other countries of the world. Believing that, we should not appoint absolute free traders as members of this board. Such a procedure would be most-illogical.
During the previous discussion on this bill, the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) stated that protection was of no use to the mixed farmer. While listening to her remarks I came to the conclusion that she was the one who was mixed, and not the farmer, because if there is any farmer in the world who benefits from a protectionist policy, it is the farmer who goes in for mixed farming. That is well illustrated by the farmers of Quebec around the cities nf Montreal, Sherbrooke and other great
XMr. Manion.]
manufacturing centres and by the farmers of Ontario around Toronto, Hamilton and other cities of that sort. I will admit quite freely that the wheat farmer of the west is not protected to a very great extent.


Edward James Young: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: I admit that-quite freely; he is the most difficult man to assist, but in his case we have done what my hon. friend's leader never did. Although he was in power for ten years and although he carried out the protectionist principle at all times, he did nothing to assist the wheat growers of the west, whereas my right hon. leader at this very session of the house is introducing legislation to help the wheat growers of the west by assistance of five cents per bushel.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends opposite
laugh, but I defy any hon. member on that side from the prairie provinces to rise in his place and disown or oppose this five cents per bushel assistance to the wheat farmers of the west. I notice they wander around the question; they skid along on thin ice fairly often, but not one of them has risen to oppose it.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I hope the Minister of
Railways will not take in too much territory in that challenge.


Robert James Manion: I take in every portion of
the three prairie provinces. By the way, when my hon. friend was speaking on this question some time ago, I asked him if he were opposed to this five cent policy and he rose in anger and asked me what right I had to put such a question to him.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Minister of Railways does not know himself what the five cents per bushel on wheat means.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Railways does, and I challenge my hon. friend right now to say whether he is opposed to that policy of giving assistance to the wheat farmer.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I certainly can oppose it as a barley grower. What do I get for barley growing?


Robert James Manion: What about the wheat
grower?


An hon. MEMBER:: What does this five
cents per bushel mean?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the Minister of
Railways tell me what it means?

Tariff Board-Mr. Manion


Robert James Manion: I am not discussing that
question at length. I could discuss that very quickly, but I have only forty minutes. I have not as much time as my hon. friend's leader had when he was speaking. When the time comes, it will be explained to the house in full.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Will my hon. friend permit a question?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Thomas McMillan: Is this five
cent bonus-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Thomas McMillan: The minister
has allowed me to ask a question, and it is a reasonable one. Is this a sectional proposition? Does it apply only to the west or does it apply to Ontario and Quebec as well?


Robert James Manion: It applies to the wheat
growers of this country.


Mr. McPHEE:: Will my hon. friend kindly explain how the five cents per bushel rebate in the freight rate on wheat will be passed on to the farmer, and how the farmer can get this five cents per bushel?


Robert James Manion: I am not dealing with that at length at the moment. I have yet to finish my speech on the tariff board legislation, and I do not intend to be drawn away from my subject by my hon. friends, not one of whom has had the courage to rise and oppose this five cent per bushel policy with respect to wheat.
It is quite true the farmers of Canada have been hit by present conditions; no one disputes that. But the manufacturers have been hit; the transportation companies have been hit; all classes have been hit just as all classes throughout the world have been affected, because a world condition exists over which we have no control. We cannot control to any great extent the injury that is being done to the farmer by the present world situation. When it changes, the policies that we have brought in since my right hon. leader came into power will doubtless show their beneficial effects.
Another statement made by some of those who were speaking against the tariff board was that the protectionist policy is for the purpose of stopping trade between Canada and other countries. That is simply another ridiculous statement, because nobody wants to stop trade between this and any other country. What we do, and I think wisely, is to advise that as far as possible the people of
Canada shall produce what they can economically produce. That is the attitude we take. The fact for example that Germany before the war was the most highly protected country in the world and was rapidly overtaking all the other countries in international trade shows that protection does not interfere with world trade. Even at the present time, with conditions bad as they are throughout the world, Germany, France and the United States, the three most highly protected countries in the world, have very large world trade.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about unemployment?


Robert James Manion: Free trade England has
the worst unemployment situation in the world.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends opposite
always forget that the really profitable trade to any country is that carried on amongst the people themselves, the home trade; the ability to buy and sell among themselves is at any time the greatest proof of the prosperity of any country. The trouble with too many who are out and out free traders-and there are not many opposite me at present-* is that they veer too strongly toward theories and too little toward facts. They argue theoretically, and on theoretical grounds alone a good case could no doubt be made out for free trade, but unfortunately the facts do not agree with the theories, and whenever they find that to be the case they say: So much the worse for the facts. That is the position taken by my hon. friends opposite. When the facts disagree with the theories, they simply ignore the facts.
My hon. friends opposite have at all times on public platforms and in budget debates stated that we stand for higher and liigher protection. We do not stand for any such thing. I believe in protection, but I believe protection, just like anything else, can be carried too far.


An hon. MEMBER:: How far?


Robert James Manion: Well, as far as we are
carrying it is the right distance. I do not believe in higher and higher tariffs; I believe in fairer and fairer trade. I believe in giving our producers in this country an opportunity to produce on a fair basis of competition with those of other countries. Even free trade England is realizing that she cannot compete, and she introduced the safeguarding of industries duty to show she could protect some of her industries. I venture to assert that
Tariff Board-Mr. Manion

within the next two or three years England will be adopting the same type of protection as other countries have adopted.
This legislation is not an attempt to give to my right hon. leader or the government any such powers as are at present possessed by the United States. The United States has the power practically overnight to raise the tariff by 50 per cent and in some cases, 1 believe, to a greater degree.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: So can
the present government.


Robert James Manion: Yes, in the regulation of
dumping, but not in other ways. During the last election I remember going into a little town in western Canada that is dependent upon a craft paper mill. The manager of that mill told me that within recent months he had obtained in Minneapolis a good order, an order for a couple of carloads of craft paper and he had shipped it to that city. He informed me he was immediately asked by the tariff board of the United States to appear before them and give reasons why he had a right to ship that into the United States. It is true he might have said that he would not appear, because he was operating in a Canadian town, but had he not gone that would have been a reason for the tariff board to bar him out. He appeared before them and they made conditions so unpleasant for him that he told me he had never attempted to get another order from the United States and he never would. We have no intention of taking any such powers as that under this board. We will appoint a board which is a fact finding board for the Finance Minister, the government and parliament in general.
I should like to discuss another point before I resume my seat, and that is the question of the ten year appointment. I suppose a large proportion of the objection to this measure is to the members of this board being appointed for a term of ten years. But if you are going to secure men for a board of this kind, you can get them only by giving them an appointment for a reasonable period. The old tariff board is a good illustration of the way the personnel of such a board changes when the appointments are not for any specified time of a reasonable length. Mr. Graham was a member of the board for only a short time, and then he retired. Mr. Lambert was a member for only a short time and then he retired. Mr. Moore retired, and Mr. McKenzie retired. These come to my mind at the moment; I do not know what other retirements there were, but it seemed to me that the board was not stable enough

to be of any use to any government, even to the government of my right hon. friend opposite. I will go further. Recently when we had to appoint, under the legislation of the house, a pension appeal board, we found very great difficulty, because of the indefinite term and the low salary, in getting a good man to take over the chairmanship. I say that quite frankly. We have different commissions in this country, the members of which are appointed for ten years or longer. The members of the railway commission are appointed for ten years, and speaking of the railway commissioners, when we oame into power nearly all the members of the board were appointees of my right hon. friend. Suppose we took the attitude that he took this afternoon, that we would not stand by a board that he had appointed.


An hon. MEMBER:: You retired some of them.


Robert James Manion: We did not. A number of them resigned of their own free will. In fact, we could not have crowded them into resigning.


Mr. RALSTON:: All judges are appointed for life. They are not in politics.


Robert James Manion: But the Board of Railway Commissioners is a commission. The members of the Farm Loan Board are appointed for ten years. Judges, as my hon. friend from Sheiburne-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston) says, are appointed for life, and I say because they are appointed for life, because they are independent of the comings and goings of governments, we have one of the finest judiciaries in the world. The judges also retire on a pension, as is provided in this bill. In addition, the fact of appointing the board for ten years makes the board more independent and brings about the very object which my right hon. friend says he desires. It puts them in a position to be independent, not only of the incoming government, but also of the government which appointed them, because there will be at least one election, and probably two, before their term expires.
Another reason for the ten year appointment is that it gives stability not only to the board, but also to tariffs, when you have such a board going into all the details of the tariff question and advising the Minister of Finance and the government. Finally, it makes the board more or less non-partisan. My right hon. -friend the leader of the opposition would not say that he ever appointed any Conservatives to the bench. There are none that I know of.

Tariff Board-Mr. Manion


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend cannot name very many. Perhaps he is going to name one. He rose as if he were going to do so, but he has not done so, and I venture to say that if he can name one, that is the limit. I do not think he ever did appoint anybody not of his own political faith.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Justice
Newcombe was one of the first judicial appointments we made. He was appointed to the supreme court, and he was a Conservative.


Robert James Manion: I have not the least idea what his politics are, but he had been Deputy Minister of Justice for a long time.


William Duff: I think he is a Tory.


Robert James Manion: He had been Deputy Minister of Justice for many years, for thirty years, I am told. I say that my right hon. friend has appointed to the bench, practically always, men of his own political faith, and I offer no criticism of that. We do the same, generally speaking, on our side of the house, but neither he nor anyone else would say that the men appointed as judges, generally speaking, are anything but non-partisan, and there is no reason in the world why the members of this tariff board, appointed as they will be for ten years, should not be just as non-partisan as the judiciary.


Frederick George Sanderson: May I ask a question? My hon. friend was appointed a member of the Ontario Liquor Control Board. Was he appointed for ten years?


Robert James Manion: No, but I could have stayed for ten years had I chose. I chose to resign. I was appointed for as long as I chose to remain, and I could have been there yet. My hon. friend will not deny that.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not know.


Robert James Manion: I do. That is the difference.


William Duff: What about the Clerk of the House? Was he a Grit? We appointed him. He is a Tory, and he is a good man.


Robert James Manion: I do not think he is a Tory. I think he is independent. I see my time is about up.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I would ask lion, gentlemen to desist from loud remarks and interruptions while the minister is speaking. He has only ten minutes left, and a member cannot present his case when he is continually interrupted.


William Duff: Especially when they are speaking from the other side.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I resent that, The hon. member has no right to make any such statement.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


William Duff: I am not going to take it back either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. gentleman would be well advised to withdraw the observation he has just made. It reflects upon the institutions of this country, and I think-after a moment's reflection he will realize that it is unwise to charge the Speaker with partiality in the terms that he has used. I trust that he will withdraw.


William Duff: I have heard the Prime Minister do the same thing that I have done, reflect on the Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is a matter for the Speaker himself. He is the servant of the house, and he can only discharge his duties as the servant of the house if the house gives him its support. When an hon. member of this house makes an aspersion of the kind my hon. friend used, without any justification in fact, and then says he is not going to withdraw the expression, I think, Mr. Speaker, that the house will have to take cognizance of it and deal with it in another way.


William Duff: Go ahead and deal with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will make the motion to-morrow.


Robert James Manion: I was going to conclude
by saying that, due to the fact that the board will be appointed for a period of ten years, the tendency will be for the board to be a more scientific body in regard to gathering and presenting data to the government under which it will serve.
The objects of the board are clearly set forth in the explanatory notes, and I will conclude my remarks by quoting two or three sentences from them, which will lay before the house in a proper manner the purpose of the board:
The intention is to secure, as a result of the work of the board, a constantly increasing body of information which will be of service to the government and to parliament.
The duties of the board are set out in section 4 of the bill. As directed by the minister, they are to inquire into the price and cost of raw' materials, the cost of transportation, the cost of production, the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour, the prices received by producers, etc., in Canada or elsewhere, and all conditions and factors affecting cost of production and price to the consumers in Canada, and
3162	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
as compared with other countries. The board is empowered to make inquiry into any other matter upon which the minister desires information, in relation to any goods which if brought into Canada or produced in Canada are subject to or exempt from duties of customs or excise.
That is very clear; the purpose of the board is to act as a fact finding advisory commission. The right hon. leader of the government is to be congratulated by the parliament of Canada for bringing in legislation to constitute this board, and he will be congratulated also, I submit, by the people of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not rise, Mr. Speaker, to object to the appointment of a tariff board. I believe that a tariff board acting in an advisory capacity can 'be very helpful to any government. I think there is no dispute about that. Nor do I intend to go into the provisions of the present bill in detail. That has been very well done already by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley), and later this afternoon by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I do not intend to say very much in regard to the remarks of the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) because I do not think that more than ten per cent of them were relevant to the question before the house. If we are going to have a tariff debate I am ready to take part in it any day, but no doubt many of these tariff matters will be discussed when the tariff resolutions are before us for consideration, and we shall then have an opportunity of expressing our views in that regard.


Robert James Manion: I brought in the tariff only because my hon. friends had referred to it, and I was replying to their arguments.


Charles A. Stewart: I am making no objections to the hon. gentleman's speech. I am simply stating that for the most part his remarks were irrelevant to the question before the house.
Having said that we all appear to be in favour of an advisory board on tariff and taxation, it then becomes a question of method. May I say that so far as I am concerned I find no fault with the leader of the government for abolishing the old tariff board, whether there was only one member then existent, or two, or how many there were. Clearly in my opinion that board, as political questions are discussed and party alignments are known in Canada, would have been of little or no service to the presept government. Moreover the present government was elected on the specific promise to

increase tariffs. They have a mandate to carry out their promise. I wish however to take issue with my.hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals when he states that the party to which he belongs is speaking for the whole of the Canadian people. There is always an opposition, and when my hon. friend was over here he spoke in no uncertain terms when voicing his opinions on public matters. We ought to remember that the majority of hon. members who sit on that side of the house procured in the last election about 200,000 votes more than the Liberal party. In voting strength therefore they do not in such a large way represent the public opinion in Canada. It is our duty to represent what we believe and what as a party we espouse; it is our duty as an opposition to state our policy.
For the last forty years I can think of no issue which has held such an important place in Canadian politics as the tariff. It has been one of the vital questions upon which different parliaments have divided upon every occasion. A board to be set up for the purpose of advising upon tariff matters must of necessity, in my opinion, be a board who feel and think the same as the party in power. I can conceive of no other condition, and I find no fault with the action of the government in proposing to set up the board. I complain only of the method they are adopting.
To my mind there are some provisions in the bill now before the house which will cause the government considerable difficulty. I should like to direct the attention of hon. members to a provision in clause 4 of the bill in which it is pointed out that the board will advise on certain particulars respecting rates to be charged. I sincerely trust the government will see fit to delete that clause from the bill. To my mind no board has the right to dictate rates to the government of Canada, the body which alone is directly responsible to the people. A board may find facts and may bring the necessary information before the Minister of Finance; he in turn may discuss them with the members of the government, who may make up their minds, as to the necessary rates.
The complaint has been made that the late government did not have information before them. Where did the present government get the information whereby they have at this moment-or will have when the tariff items are passed by this house-amended over one-half the items of the whole tariff schedule? Where did they get that information? Moreover I will say that the most important items entering into the livelihood of the people

Tariff Board-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
of Canada are to be changed by the Minister of Finance and his government without a tittle of information except what they may have gained behind closed doors. I will admit there was a hearing where representations might be made, and as a spectator I took occasion to attend. Not one word of information was forthcoming however as to what was to be done. We were informed that briefs were filed, and action was to be taken upon those briefs. So far as the public were concerned however until the day the right hon. Minister of Finance brought down his budget certainly no hon. member on this side of the house and probably very few on that side knew what the changes would be. I say if the government is willing to take the responsibility for making these drastic changes, which in many instances mean complete exclusion of particular articles so far as trade is concerned, all I have to say is that from the point of view of the government there does not appear to be any necessity for a tariff board. I am not going to offer any complaint on that score; theirs is the responsibility. They said they would assume that responsibility; the people accepted their offer and placed them in power, and they are now in a position where they are responsible for the changes the bill now before us would involve.
Having voiced my opinion I now claim exactly the same measure of responsibility for the party to which I belong. I do not represent a high tariff party, but rather the opposite. If the party which I support are fortunate enough to succeed in the next election I do not wish to be handicapped by being advised by a group of gentlemen who were selected because on a question of national importance they were diametrically opposed to my views. I think I heard one of my hon. friends say that there is no chance. All I have to say to him is that he has not been travelling in recent weeks.
My objections to the bill now before us are twofold. First, the suggested term of ten years is an imposition upon any government which might follow the present one. I make this statement because with respect to the board which has been dismissed, I stand firmly behind the action of the present Prime Minister. Moreover may I add that I do not see the slightest necessity for establishing a tariff board by legislative action. After all the government must take responsibility in choosing advisers, and I wonder why they want by statute to fasten for ten years upon the parliament of Canada gentlemen who hold their point of view. My hon. friend the
Minister of Railways and Canals, and indeed the Minister of Finance himself, made the statement the other day that the tariff board would be no different from the Board of Railway Commissioners. I think that was an absurd statement to make, the worst kind of absurdity.


Robert James Manion: I did not make any such statement.


Charles A. Stewart: I so understood my hon. friend.


Robert James Manion: No; I merely said it was appointed for ten years.


Charles A. Stewart: There is
no similarity between the Board of Railway Commissioners and the proposed tariff board. The board of Railway Commisisoners are appointed for the purpose of adjudicating upon railway rates, and there is nothing of a political nature in connection with it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: There is nothing political
about railway rates?


Charles A. Stewart: Not so far as I know. If my hon. friend has any information on the point I should like to have it. My understanding is that the duties of the Board of Railway Commissioners are purely and simply to adjudicate upon rates. I do not view the Board of Railway Commissioners in the same light as I would view the tariff board at all. As for making comparison with the appointment of judges, may I say that I have known some judges who were at one time my political opponents, and yet they have made some of the best judges who have been placed upon the bench. I am frank enough to say that I have never been able to discover that they were in the slightest degree biased, even in political matters. But the matter now before us is of an entirely different nature. No doubt we will have to stand for the setting up of the proposed board by statute, I most emphatically resent the fastening of a board of this character upon future parliaments. May I repeat however that I see no necessity for a statute. I take it that the board is bound to be political in character. If the people of Canada decide that they wish to have a high tariff government, they have a right to their decision and we must be prepared to accept the high tariff policy. If, on the other hand the people of Canada decide the opposite, then they should not be advised by a board such as the one proposed, and when that occasion arose the proper thing to do would be to discharge that board at once and appoint one in keeping with the viewpoint of
3164	COMMONS
Tariff Board-Mr. Stewart (Edmonton)
the party in office. That, however, is a matter which is immaterial to me, because I am bound to say-and I think my prediction will be borne out before the board is in operation very long-that upon any occasion when the board is asked to report on rates to be fixed nothing but trouble will result for the government. The responsibility of fixing rates rests with the government, and with the government alone.
May I say in a general way that I for one am not very much enamoured of this commission business. Just recently the government appointed a commission, and that commission has not helped them very much. We had a few commissions in our time that did not make the work of administration very easy for us. I am convinced that the old and well-tried principle of governmental responsibility is the best principle in the long run. Commissions may recommend policies to the government, but they arc not responsible for the putting of those policies into effect, and the adoption of such policies almost inevitably tends to place the government in a difficult position.
In conclusion I desire to reiterate, that I am opposing the bill because of its arbitrary provisions, and I am opposing it because of the clause making the tenure of the commissioners ten years. With those clauses withdrawn, I am prepared to support the bill. So far as I am concerned, I say emphatically that I do not propose again at any time to lend my voice in support of any commission or body of men whose duty it shall be to advise the government definitely as to what action shall be taken in respect to any particular matter. I repeat, 1 believe in the old system of governmental responsibility.


Mr. J. EARL LAWSON (West York):: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted to participate in this debate by the challenge of the right hon, leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) on Friday last when he said:
Whether the excellent speech delivered by the hon. member fpr Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley) was so effective that no hon. gentleman on the other side was prepared to reply until the hon. member who has just spoken-
That was the hon. Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan).
[DOT]-came to the rescue, or whether the Prime Minister had passed out the word that it was to be on his ipse dixit and on nothing else that the measure should pass, I cannot say.
I should like to point out to the right hon. gentleman that there are a great many of us, if not- all, on this side who desire, having regard to present conditions in the country, to dispose of the country's business with the
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
utmost despatch; hence we are not prone to get upon our feet and speak in support of a measure which has our hearty and solid approval, particularly when that measure is sponsored by one in whom we have such confidence as we have in our illustrious leader, the Prime Minister of Canada.
I was at a loss to understand why the right hon. leader of the opposition could not appreciate our position until I followed closely the speech which he delivered this afternoon, and then I began to understand his mentality. To be exact, by the clock which hangs under the gallery he took one hour and twenty-five minutes to tell us of all the objectionable features in this bill, to warn us of all the difficulties into which we were heading, and then he took five minutes to tell us that if his party were so fortunate as to come into power they would not feel bound by this proposed legislation, unless the appointments to the board were such as to meet with his approval.
The hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) to my mind has well described a great deal of what was said by the right hon. leader of the opposition this afternoon when he used an expression common in legal parlance, that the right hon. gentleman had "set up men of straw in order that he might knock them down." May I recall to the minds of hon. members the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition with respect to that section of the bill which provides for the administration of oaths by the proposed board. He spent a great deal of time telling us of the evil which might flow from any such provision; he told us of the boards which he had created and in which the representatives of labour, of manufacturers, of farmers, of consumers, and of other interests might come together and agree that some particular statement was a fact, and that that having been agreed upon by all parties a great deal of contention would be avoided. Well, sir, I know of no provision in this bill that prohibits this proposed court, like any other court, from accepting as a fact that which is admitted to be so by all parties concerned. But almost in the next breath the right hon. gentleman proceeded to deal with another section of the bill and complained that it gave this very board the power to accept statements which were not made under oath. The one objection, to my mind, was the complete answer to the other.
Then I listened with interest to his dissertation on the inability of this proposed board to deal with economic phenomena. When the right hon. gentleman was speaking in that regard it put me in mind of a story

Tariff Board-Mr. Lawson
which I am tempted to tell the house. Knowing as I did that he was fond of dictionaries and definitions, having learnt that from one of his marathon speeches this session, I came to the conclusion that in dealing with economic phenomena he had placed upon that word the second interpretation which is given to it in the dictionary, namely:
That which strikes one as strange, unusual, or unaccountable.
As I never was very strong at resisting temptation, I shall have to succumb and repeat the story to which I have alluded. Once upon a time a coloured gentleman was asked to explain the meaning of the word "phenomenon." Being at a loss for words in which to give its exact definition, he thought he would do so by illustration. So he said-If you see a bird sitting on the limb of a tree, that is not a phenomenon, that is natural; if you see a cow grazing in a pasture, that is not a phenomenon, that is natural; if you see a Scotch thistle growing in a field, that is natural, that is not a phenomenon; but if you see a cow sitting on a thistle and singing like a bird, that is a phenomenon. That aptly describes my conception of the right hon. gentleman's arguments with respect to the economic phenomena which would come before this board and with which as a fact finding body he submitted that it would not be capable of dealing.
The right hon. gentleman, and indeed the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) in the main embodied in their arguments a reiteration of the points which had been made by the hon. member for Hants-Kings (Mr. Ilsley). Personally I desire to congratulate the latter hon. gentleman upon his speech. I congratulate him not only upon the evidence of exhaustive research which ho gave, but also upon the concise summary of the legislation of different countries which was the result of his research. I congratulate him not only upon the words he used but also upon the clarity of his diction, and I congratulate him not only upon the force of his argument but also upon the effective presentation of seeming logic which, when examined more carefully, to my mind became little more than specious sophistry. I would remind the hon. member for Hants-Kings that no matter 'how symmetrical and perfect a superstructure you may erect, it cannot stand upon a foundation of crumbling economic theories or upon misstatements of the policies of the Conservative party.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings made five attacks upon this bill. In the first place he attacked the tenure of office which is fixed by one of the sections for members of the
tariff board. He attacked the clause providing for ineligibility of the members of the board to become members of the House of Commons within two years after ceasing to hold such office. He attacked the provision that the board could hear evidence or accept statements and information in secret. His fourth point was that parliament was delegating its powers to an outside body, and his fifth objection was that the section giving power to the board to determine what increases or decreases in rates of duty were required to equalize the difference in costs of production in Canada and in foreign countries was detrimental to responsible government. For my purpose, in following the hon. gentleman's argument, I propose to combine his first and second objections and to deal with his fourth and fifth points jointly, because the underlying principles which relate to both are so interwoven as to be impossible of separation.
The hon. gentleman started off by agreeing that we should have in this country a fact finding body in respect of tariff matters, but he objected very strenuously to the constitution of this board and its powers, because he said it would not be a fact finding body but in the result would be an opinion forming body. Let us examine that statement for a few moments. In human existence, all fact finding individuals and all fact finding bodies are but expressing conclusions as to what is fact, based upon information which may be placed before them or which they may have of their own knowledge. Someone in this house has referred to our judiciary. A judge, in finding facts in a case, does nothing more than give his opinion or his conclusion as to what is the fact or facts, based upon the information and the evidence before him. We constantly refer to our juries as fact finding bodies, yet what do they do? When you have a fact found by a jury you merely have the aggregate conclusion of twelve minds as to what is the fact. If in other walks we accept that as fact which is but the opinion of some individual or some tribunal, then I ask wherein the findings of this tribunal will differ from those of any of the other tribunals which may be set up in this country.
But my hon. friend from Hants-Kings would argue, as he did argue, that because the appointees to this board will be political partisans, with preconceived ideas of tariff, they are not competent to find facts in respect of tariff matters. Might I again ask hon. members of this house to consider our judiciary, of which we are so proud. I suppose few if any men have been appointed to the bench in Canada who ait some time were not political partisans. Certainly no one ever was ap-
Tariff Board-Mr. Lawson

pointed who did not have preconceived ideas in respect of certain subjects when he was elevated to the 'bench, yet we find that having divested themselves of their political activities and political partisanship, we are able to secure that independence and that judicial determination which is so much sought in this country. But why do we get the independence which we so much desire? First, we get it because the men appointed-as will be the case with those appointed to this board-are men of honesty, of decency and of integrity. In the next place, we get it because they have a security of tenure of office for a fixed term, and in the third place because they are removed, by prohibitions in our statute, from participation in political affairs. In this bill which is before the house we shall have, as I have stated we will assume, in the appointments the same qualifications as exist in appointments to the judiciary, and the provision for appointment for a ten year term gives security of tenure of office. You also have a two year prohibition from active participation in politics, at least to the extent of standing for membership in this house, after that term of office is concluded. Therefore, sir, I say that I am in hearty accord with these provisions of the bill. To my mind nothing more can be accomplished by setting up & new tariff board in this country than was accomplished under the old tariff board, which has now passed out of existence and with Avhich I will deal in a moment, unless there are in the bill such provisions as those with which I have just dealt.
Now let me come to the third argument of my hon. friend. He objects very strenuously to this board having the power to hear evidence in secret, or to obtain information without proclaiming it to the world. This board is a court; the statute provides that it is to be a court of record. All our courts have power to hear cases, either in whole or in part, in camera. So in that respect this court does not differ. But here is a body which is to be charged with the most minute investigations into the intricate processes of industry. There are in many industries secret processes, promoting efficiency, processes which it is necessary to keep secret from the world in order that the industries in question may not be met with unfair competition. Yet my hon. friend argues that once those industries are compelled by the tariff board-because bear in mind that under this act every person is not only a competent but a compellable witness-to give to the board their secret processes, or the secrets of their efficiency in production, this information should be broad-

cast to the world in order that our industries should be put in an unfair position by that information going to foreign competitors with whom from time to time they must compete. True, the sittings of the old tariff board were not secret, but certainly their findings and the advice they gave to the Minister of Finance were secret. How well I remember, as a young member of this house, being appalled by one of my early experiences in connection with that board. I was interested in the market gardeners, to whom the hon. Minister of Railways has referred, because I have quite a number of them in my riding. I found that they had had an investigation or hearing before the old tariff board in 1926, and apparently the Minister of Finance had received no advice as a result. I found that they came back and had another hearing in 1928, and apparently the minister did not receive any advice from that hearing. When the estimates came up in 1929 I found that some sums of money were paid to some special advisers to advise the advisory tariff board in connection with these matters in respect of which they had not advised the Minister of Finance. Finally we come down to 1930, in which year there was included in the budget a provision in the nature of a seasonal specific duty. We have not yet been able to determine whether that action was taken as a result of advice given by the tariff advisory board, or whether it was a mere compromise effected by the dissentient element as to matters of tariff in the late government. If evil there be in secrecy, we will defeat that evil. This board, as a fact finding body, will be required to publish its findings and we will know what advice is being given to the government in power at any time.
The hon. member for Hants-Kings seemed to be greatly perturbed by the provisions of section 4, subsection 1(b) of the bill. He is greatly put out because of the powers given to this board to make inquiry with respect to what increase or decreases in the rates of duty are necessary in order to equalize the differences in the costs of production in thi3 and other countries. He contended that by so doing parliament was delegating certain of its powers to an outside body. I will confess that the tariff has been for some time a subject of political contention in this country, but it has been more than that. I know of no subject in respect to which there has been more misrepresentation during election campaigns. We on this side of the 'house were designated to-day as a high tariff party, but that I strenuously deny. We claim that we are a protectionist tariff party. What is protection?

Tariff Board-Mr. Lawson
Protection is giving to industry in this country not an advantage but an equal opportunity to compete with foreign competitors in our own domestic market. Why does industry need this equal opportunity and equal advantage? Because of the standard of living prevailing in the different countries where goods may bo manufactured and shipped into this country. Let us not forget that wages is one of the major items in a standard of living. To my mind there are two reasons or causes which enable other countries to ship goods into this country-assuming they are not dumping- which goods furnish an unequal and unfair competition for industry in this country. The first is that they have a lower standard of living, and the second is that they may possess an enormous domestic market with highly centralized methods of production.
Our policy has been to give an equal opportunity to industry in this country, but we do not want to be again met with the misrepresentation during election campaigns that we are taking money ouit of the pockets of the poor, who are the consumers, and putting it into the pockets of the manufacturers. We ask that a board be set up which will have the power, the right and the means to determine the rate of duty necessary in order to give to Canadians an equal opportunity in their own market, yet my hon. friends opposite strenuously object. A finding made by this board will not take out of the mouths of the political parties of this country the respective fiscal policies which they may care to argue. I am confident that the Conservative party will continue, as it has in the past, to advocate a policy of protective tariffs. The formation of this board will place not only this government but succeeding governments in a position where they must come out before the Canadian electorate with a clear-cut fiscal policy and, [DOT] the rate of duty which is necessary to give to Canadian people an equal opportunity having been ascertained, say whether they are in favour of or opposed to such rate. It would not stop some hon. gentlemen opposite contending, as they have in the past, that we should not encourage certain industries by giving them an equal opportunity because they are not indigenous to this country.
I submit that there is a much deeper motive behind the opposition to this bill than that espoused by the hon. gentlemen who have opposed it. If this board comes into existence and if the equalization of rates is determined by a quasi-judicial tribunal, then no longer will the low tariff opposition, as the right hon. leader of the opposition has designated one
faction of his forces, be able to go into certain sections of this country and say: We will reduce the tariff; we will put in a low tariff, yet we will give these industries the protection which they require in order to have an equal opportunity in the Canadian market. No longer will the free traders be able to go out and preach in some other sections of this country those beliefs which they have as to the expected results of their policy. No longer will that faction described by the right hon. leader of the opposition as the tariff for revenue faction be able to go into other parts of this country and preach their doctrine. No longer will those members of the former government who were in favour of a protective tariff be able to go into the highly industrialized sections of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec and preach a doctrine of protective tariffs. Should this board be appointed we would not have a tariff rvhich would be a mere compromise.
I ask hon. members of this house to picture for one moment the situation which must have prevailed in the cabinet of the late government. That government was advised by the tariff advisory board, whose advice the rest of us never had the advantage of knowing. There you had sitting at the same council table the then Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) who was in favour of a protective policy, and next to him the then Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) who had sounded the death-knell of protection. I admire the ex-Minister of the Interior in one respect-he is still prepared to stand in his place in the house and say that he is in favour of low tariffs. I was told that several of those who supported him had the habit, when they were confronted with the question why the death-knell had not taken effect, of saying that a funeral procession was always slow in movement and they had just about reached the sepulchre of protection at the time of the last election. Next to him there was the former Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Malcolm), another gentleman who was intensely interested in maintaining a protective tariff. Then down the line you had the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell), a crusader for free trade who came from the west but who apparently did not produce many reductions in the compromise effected. Then you had at the head of the table the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) who-and I pay him a compliment as I say this-is, I think, the master of compromise in this country in political affairs now as he was then. What

Tariff Board-Mr. Speakman
would one expect from such a polyglot aggregation of diversified opinion seated around one council table but the compromise tariff which we have had in this country during the past nine years?
Therefore, if for no other reason than that, after this board is constituted, we shall have, as long as the present government has any say in the matter, a truly protective tariff, and at least in future we shall have a tariff based upon intelligent findings as to what rates of duty are necessary to give Canadians an equal opportunity in their own domestic market, I support this bill.


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, if we are inclined to take the word-and I am prepared to do so-of every hon. member who has spoken so far in the debate, the bill now before us is one of the most important pieces of legislation which has been placed before the house this session, and the debate which is taking place is one of such importance as to warrant any hon. member in taking part and in briefly outlining his opinion and position.
One thing has become obvious, and that is that in every part of the house and throughout its membership one finds universal agreement with the basic idea of a tariff board, that there should be such a body. The divergence of opinion takes place in respect to the method which it employs, its personnel and its term of office; but as to the board itself, its usefulness, its necessity, there seems to be but one mind, and that is a view which I share. Ever since I was old enough to take any intelligent interest in public affairs, and I assume for many years before that, everyone in this country, whether a so-called protectionist or a so-called free trader, has been in favour of a fiscal policy based not upon the exigencies of political necessity, not upon any popular appeal, nor upon any vote-catching phrase, but upon scientific facts from which one could draw scientific conclusions. I doubt whether it is possible to evolve such a policy, but I am certain the nearer we can come to doing so the better it will be for this country, and the nearer we can come to a fiscal policy, whether it be low tariff or high tariff or no tariff at all, which is based upon facts and not upon sentiment and prejudice, the better it will be for those engaged in agriculture, manufacture and industry in Canada.
As this is not a budget debate I shall not deliver myself of any lengthy or even brief utterances as to my beliefs in tariff matters. This is not the time; it is not the opportunity.

But may I say this: It has been said, and with a good deal of apparent justice, in fact, I think with a good deal of real justice, that the tariff board bill introduced by the present government is, however meritorious, somewhat of a belated measure, in that so many of the more important tariff items have been dealt with before the government can have the advantage of the wisdom of this board. I agree with that; but, on the other hand, I would not take the government to task were they to go ahead and make all the tariff changes towards which their minds, without a tariff board at all, would impel them, because there is no question, whethever my personal opinions may be as to the tariff, that the government of the day is not susceptible of criticism for the fact that they have been increasing tariffs. They would be recreant to their pledges and to their declared policies had they not done so. They were elected on that basis; they made those pledges to the people during the election and before, and that is why I have never criticized, nor do I now propose to criticize them, for doing what they promised to do, although for my own part I may doubt the wisdom of the people who put them into power upon such a policy.
I shall not, for the .reasons I have given, follow any of the other speakers in the ramifications of their addresses, although I should like to pause but for a moment to pay a sincere compliment to the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson) who has just taken his seat. Not only do I compliment him, as he would himself phrase it, upon the clarity of his diction, the logical sequence of his remarks and the meticulous care and precision with which he built up his argument, but I also compliment him to an even greater degree upon the admirable skill with which he touched upon and gently passed by one or two of those provisions of which he spoke, but into which he did not delve and upon which he threw no additional light. As my time is limited I shall not attempt to discuss the whole of the bill; I shall not go into all its phases, its provisions or the great part of its complexities, but I shall confine myself to two or three of, to my mind, the more important provisions.
The first one is this: we have agreed that we should have such a board; that this board shall be an honest, non-partisan, fact finding body and that upon the basis of the facts so found a government may shape its policies and may set its tariff items. But all boards must have some basis upon which they shall work, some principle that will guide them in making their inquiries, and we find in this

Tariff Board-Mr. Speakman
bill-and that is the first provision to which I shall make specific reference-a detailed obligation which shall form the basis of their inquiries and from which, as I understand the matter, they can make no very great departure. That basis shall be the relative cost of production in this and other countries in respect of goods which may enter Canada in competition with the domestic article; the relatve cost of production as based on the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour; the cost of raw materials, the capital cost of buildings, the cost of the money used in the industry, and last but not least, the relative efficiency of those who carry on those industries.
May I first, then, say this, that the reference ignores what to my mind is one of the most important phases of the whole inquiry, and that is the effects -which tariffs may have, and are bound to have, on the general trade conditions of this country, upon export trade, upon international trade, upon the primary industries, which cannot in the very nature of things be benefited by tariffs. What effect will tariffs have upon them? That question will be ignored or very largely ignored in the inquiries.
The next thought I have to offer is this. We have found in past times that commissions which have been set up to make inquiries throughout the country have met with almost insuperable difficulty in ascertaining the exact productive costs of industries even within our own country. What will the difficulty be when we attempt to ascertain those costs even approximately in countries other than ours? Can facts of that nature so elicited be anything but mere approximations? Can it be anything but a mere mass of information more or less accurate? Yet upon the basis of such investigations, recommendations will be made by the board.
I have stated that the reference ignores one or two of the more important phases in any tariff inquiry. I have said that when considering relative costs, one of the most important relative costs to be considered is the relative efficiency of management, which is an imponderable factor, a factor elusive, a factor which it is almost impossible to establish as a basis of fact, and yet, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps the most important factor in our fiscal policy, for if we are to have a protective tariff which will equalize sale opportunities between one set of goods and another, we shall be faced with this problem: How shall we protect an industry and yet not encourage inefficiency in that industry? Take any two industries, and given the same rate of wages 22110-201
within both, the same hours of labour, the same apparent opportunities, one industry will succeed and another fail. Why? Because of the relative efficiency of management in the two industries. What guarantee have we-I am not now speaking in any antagonistic spirit, but because I think this information should be available-that a tariff that would equalize sales opportunities would not put a premium upon inefficiency, would not make it possible for a manufacturer in this country, hiding behind a tariff which is based upon his cost of production to continue to use his worn-out machinery and follow his wom-out methods, and refuse to advance to that stage of efficiency which competition alone can ensure? There, to my mind, is one of the first dangers which must be obviated.
I come to the next step. Amongst the primary duties of this board is that of suggesting the tariff rates which are necessary to meet the conditions and to give equality of opportunity, and there I venture to say that we are approaching dangerously near to that doctrine which gives to an outside and irresponsible body the authority to set up tariff rates. True, as the hon. member for West York (Mr. Lawson), who spoke so eloquently a few moments ago said, the board will recommend a suggested tariff, but that does not relieve the government from the primary responsibility of putting those tariffs into effect or of not putting them into effect. Any government which finds itself faced with suggested specific increases or decreases in the rates of duty will have only one alternative. It must either accept or reject them. What does that mean? If a government rejects the suggested tariff and refuses to put into effect those schedules which have been indicated by the board as essential to equalize opportunities, then I need only refer to the statement which was made by the hon. member for West York and say that the government will be pilloried before the people as being unwilling to accept the consequences of their own actions, unwilling to put into force a protective tariff which has been shewn to be essential. Again, if they reject the suggested tariff they will destroy the value of the board. They will have repudiated the result of all its fact finding. They will have made of the board a useless body. If, on the Other hand, they accept the suggested tariff, who shall say that the board, and not the government, is the body which has set the tariff rates of this country? It may be because of my limited intelligence, but it seems to me that just as we are faced with a yes or no vote on every question that comes before the house, so every government must



Tariff Board-Mr. Speakman
be faced with this alternative, either to reject the suggested schedules and so repudiate the work of the body which it has appointed, or to accept them and become subsidiary in that respect to the creature of its own creation. Those are two of the difficulties which I see: the limited basis of inquiry, being limited to ascertaining relative costs, with the danger of encouraging inefficiency and lack of progress in our factories, and secondly, the inescapable difficulty in respect of the power of this body to indicate the necessary tariff schedules to meet the conditions which the board itself has outlined.
Now I come to the amendment. In order to discuss the amendment properly, I must briefly outline my own concept of the sort of tariff board that I would like to see functioning. It would be a purely scientific board, absolutely non-partisan, a board which would bring to the government and to parliament in the study of this important subject the facts of the case; not to suggest what schedules should be put into force, but to state precisely what rates of wages are paid in this and that factory, in this and another country, and what is the output of an hour's labour; to let us know beyond doubt or peradventure just what are the, real costs of labour and of production, the real conditions with which labour and industry are surrounded in different sections of this country and in countries other than our own; to let us know without possibility of contradiction just what effect imports may have upon exports, and the relation between the two. In other words, it would inform us on all of those questions which go to form the fiscal problem of this country. It would be a body scientific and absolutely non-partisan, engaged in fact finding, and as a result of its labours there would be removed from the sphere of imagination so many of those subjects connected with our fiscal policy which have been discussed in this country for the *last fifty years. That is my concept.
Now I approach the amendment from that point of view. Its weakness to my mind lies in this:	Prior to moving his amendment the mover outlined the different weaknesses contained in the bill itself, pointing to all those weaknesses as reasons why the bill itself would be inoperative or operate only for evil. But the amendment itself does not seek to remove any one of those weaknesses. It does not seek to remove or modify any one of those evils. What it does seek is to make non-permanent not the provisions of the proposed legislation but the atmosphere which may surround the act, the mentality, the temperament, the point of view of the men whose duty it will be to admin-
ister it. That is what the amendment seeks. In seeking that it brings to my mind another evil, that in accepting the amendment we frankly state that as a matter of policy this shall not be a non-partisan, fact finding board, but that in its very essence it shall be a partisan board. When we say it must hold the confidence of the government under which it functions the only possible interpretation to be placed upon those words is the interpretation placed upon similar words as applied to our present high commissioner in London. A board which would share the political views, the views upon policies, the views upon fiscal matters which are held by the government of the day must be, to my mind at least, a partisan board.


Mr. ILSLEY:: No. It may be a board of a character such as my hon. friend desires, in which event it will command the confidence of succeeding administrations.


Alfred Speakman: If the personnel of a
board were of such a high character as to warrant the abiding confidence of the administration which appointed it or of later administrations, then the same might apply to the board at present under discussion. I have no objection to the term "shall hold office only during pleasure" except in one connection to which I shall refer presently. I do object however to the preamble or the statement leading up to the expression I have just quoted. My interpretation of the language of the amendment would be to this effect, "that this board shall be a partisan board"-in the sense that it reflects the fiscal views of the government of the day. The whole argument of the hon. member who moved the amendment, of the right hon. leader of the opposition and of all hon. members who have spoken in support of the amendment, tends to show that the board shall be in the nature of a body of confidential advisers holding the views of the government of the day. That, Mr. Speaker, is a concept of a board far removed from that which I hold. My greatest fear concerning the personnel of the proposed board is that it will be partisan. Appointed, as it will and must be, by the government, I am afraid the board will be partisan and that it will bring to the performance of its duties and its inquiries not the unimpassioned, non-partisan, unprejudiced views of the scientific observer but the partisan, biased views of the political board seeking to uphold a decision already determined upon. That is what I would be afraid of.
I am in this position: On the one hand I am faced with the possibility that a partisan

Tariff Board-Mr. McMillan (Huron)
board will be appointed under the terms of the proposed act, the terms of which however do not of necessity indicate that the board shall be of a partisan nature. Our experience in every phase of public life has been that other things being equal the long term board appointed for a term of years and free from political interference is more apt to be nonpartisan than one which is appointed during pleasure. That is a likelihood. I am not going to summon as evidence such boards as the pensions board, the railway commission or other bodies of that nature. To my mind they have no relation whatever to the board now proposed. Those to which I have referred are administering acts which embody policies agreed upon by all sides of the house, policies about which no political contention has arisen to any large degree. They are administrative bodies putting into effect legislation and policies which have been agreed upon by successive parliaments and governments. Those bodies are not such as the one now under consideration.
I can see the danger with which the hon. member who moved the amendment was concerned, that of being saddled for ten years with a body which may be antagonistic to the views of a government which may come into power at a later time. I can see the possibility of a body which may be antagonistic in its nature, its outlook and its whole attitude towards the expressed viewpoint or expressed wish of the people. Certainly there is that danger. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, if we are ever going to reach the time when we shall have a scientific tariff based upon honest facts we can only reach it by placing the tariff board beyond the reach of the influence of any government which may be in power at any time. Were it not for the statement I find in the preamble of the amendment, were it not for the fact that in supporting the amendment I should have to commit myself to a policy of which I do not approve, the philosophy-if we may use the term-that a tariff board should at all times reflect the changing fiscal views of changing governments, that it should bring to the performance of its task and to its inquiries minds already prejudiced and biased; were it not for that so-called preamble I would feel more kindly disposed towards the amendment. If the amendment sought to remove some of the obvious weaknesses I see in the bill, two of which I have touched upon, I should feel more kindly towards it. In the meantime I must confess, Mr. Speaker, that while I approve of the principle of the bill I cannot approve of many of the provisions therein contained. While I see the danger the mover 22110-2014
of the amendment had in his mind I certainly cannot become a party to the statement of policy outlined by him. All we can do in this house is, if possible, in committee, to modify and amend the bill. I must confess I do not approach that task in any sanguine spirit. I am fairly certain the bill will leave the committee much as it entered. We shall, however, do our best to effect those amendments. In the meantime we have heard the different points of view expressed and we have given the government something to think about. We have given the people of Canada some little idea of our attitude toward these matters, and in that regard we have performed the only duty which devolves upon us at the present time.
In conclusion, may I say that I have referred to the mandate of the present government, and I agree that the government has a mandate. Under the terms of its pledges and because of the majority by which it was elected and supported it has a right and a bounden duty to put into effect a higher tariff, of which I personally disapprove. May I add that I also have a mandate. The people of Red Deer constituency did not assist in putting the present government in power; they were not partners to the fiscal policy which is at present being put into effect. I was elected partly at least because of a protest against that policy, and I have voiced my protest in the house. Having so voiced my protest I have done my duty.


Thomas McMillan: 
James Dew Chaplin: Was Mr. Marshall elected in Canada?


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Marshall
continues:	*
As long as the congress of the United States levies the taxes and determines the sources from which the revenue shall be derived, the tariff will remain in politics. This is not a discussion of the right or the wrong of it. This is the frank expression of an opinion that a tariff commission is just about as valuable as a letter written by an inmate of an insane hospital. To pretend to organize a commission that will tell the difference in the cost of production at home and abroad, is no more possible than it is for a one-leged man to dance a hornpipe. You cannot even tell the comparative cost of production and the reason for it, in factories in our own land, our own state, our own community. It depends on the plant, the management, and a thousand other things. We shall never have any valuable information from a tariff commission until they find out how to make men and plants alike, and have them all moved by common impulse.
I believe we can obtain valuable information through the medium of a tariff board, yet I do not believe we can get information which will reveal why industries on one side of a street are prosperous and similar industries on the other side are not. Before we can do that, we must appoint men who have that superhuman vision that they can take cognizance of the human equation which is involved in all such industries. Show me an individual who has been successful along any particular line for any considerable length of time, and although I have never known him I can point to him as one who has carried into that particular line that care and attention to every detail of his business which, when properly directed, is likely to produce success in any line. As an illustration of that, I believe we had in the person of the present hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Moore) a chairman of the tariff board who was as much an expert in that line as any individual it was possible to secure. Notwithstanding all that my hon. friends opposite have said about the record of the hon. member for Ontario in that
capacity, one thing we must all admit is that be commanded the respect, good will and attention of every individual or company who appeared before his board.
The part which I intend to emphasize in my closing remarks is this: I am sorry my good friend the Minister of Justice (Mr Guthrie) is not in his place, because two or three years ago he read this very paragraph against the appointment of a tariff commission, and I should have expected that when this tariff board bill was being prepared, he would have been standing beside the Minister of Finance (Mr. Bennett) with a cudgel ready to knock him down if he added to it anything that would tend towards the creation of a tariff board which did not meet with his wishes. Where is he now? Is he like the great majority of hon members across the floor who seem to go into a condition of hibernation during the winter time and to all intents and purposes have become comatose in the summer time?


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I listened
this afternoon to the address of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), and I would not be driven to my feet now if anyone had corrected the two wholly erroneous impressions which the right hon. gentleman gave the house. I shall try to be as bnef as I can. I recall to the house that he stated that those who had found comfort and consolation in the Combines Investigation Act would find themselves struck at by this legislation; that much labour, in which I know the right hon. gentleman was concerned, was involved in placing that act upon the statute books; that it had recently been invoked and that good had come from putting it into practice. The impression was left that this tariff board, composed of high protectionist members in sympathy with the leader of the government (Mr. Bennett), would, of course, in pronouncing upon a case brought before them in their capacity in relation to the Combines Investigation Act, set up a star chamber and decide in their own favour, the result being that instead of having a Combines Investigation Act as effective as we have it now, we would have something different and not making at all for the welfare of the people. If anyone will read this legislation he will see that not a single power given under the Combines Investigation Act is taken away,, but on the contrary, those who have found profit in that act have an easier access or another avenue to the benefits which that act confers, because this board that we are seek-

Tariff Board-Mr. Ryckman
ing to set up may be clothed simply with the power, the authority, of the registrar or the investigator under the Combines Investigation Act. That is the whole story.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is just whait I object to.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: We shall leave that objection with the right hon. gentleman, but I tell him now, and I think others will understand, that not a single right given to any citizen of Canada has been taken away by the proposed legislation, but on the contrary, better avenues are opened up, to invoke that act if it be desired so to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my hon. friend this question? I do not wish to misunderstand him and I am anxious to avoid any misapprehension as to the provisions and purposes of the bill. Does this proposed legislation not enable the government, if it so desires, to refer to this board what other parties may wish to have referred to the registrar or a commissioner under the Combines Investigation Act?


Edmond Baird Ryckman: This legislation gives to the governor in council the power to refer to this board if it so desires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that is wrong.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: But it does not say that any syllable of the Combines Investigation Act is altered or that anyone who seeks to invoke that act cannot do so, and my right hon. friend cannot find any such provision in the terms of this bill. What has been the difficulty in connection with an appeal under the Combines Investigation Act? The late government saw fit to appoint referees or investigators who did not at all times command the judgment of the communities; they were not gentlemen distinguished in their callings. I do not wish to reflect upon any of them, but at the present time one of those investigators who was appointed by the right hon. gentleman, has been guilty of the grossest defamation, did he not hide himself behind the fact that he says he was occupying a public position and therefore what he said was privileged. As regards the tariff board as we are attempting to constitute it, composed of three men who will be worthy of the high salaries which they will receive, I tell the house with confidence that such a board will be much more likely to give decisions that will satisfy the people than those whom the previous government appointed as investigators in such cases. That is all I have to say in regard to that.

In the next place my right hon. friend told a very sad tale of how the country would suffer if the proposed tariff board took the place of the board of customs. It was intimated that in a case where a decision under the Customs Act was required, it would be a sad thing if a board constituted as this would be, as we hope by men of distinguished ability and integrity, were to hear the case and the public would suffer. What about the board of customs? If there be anything that is un-British in our constitution, it is the board of customs, and I think my hon. friend knows that, because this law was put upon the statute books by bis friends when in power and it has remained there for about twenty-five years. If I have a claim as an importer under the Customs Act and I desire to have the very right and justice of my case decided, I first come to the commissioner of customs, who is in my opinion a very fine gentleman. I suppose that some of you would say, if I am not prepared to say it, that in some cases his judgment has not been right. Suppose I think his judgment has not been right in my own case; then what? There is a right of appeal to the board of customs. That provision has been there for twenty-five years. Who compose that board? I am appealing against the ruling of the commissioner of customs. Feeling injured by the decision given against me by the commissioner of customs, I appeal to the customs board, and I find presiding at that board the commissioner of customs. At his right hand I find the commissioner of income tax, also in the office of the Department of National Revenue, and at his left hand I find the commissioner of excise. In all fairness, is there a chance under the circumstances that there will in every case, be an impartial decision by a board composed as that is, with three men in the same office sitting in appeal from a judgment given by one of them who is the chairman of the board? The thing is patently and obviously wrong. There is no doubt about that, and any reasonable man would rejoice in the substitution of a responsible board to which an appeal could be taken and by which a judgment may be rendered according to the facts.
But my right hon. friend said, the decision of this tariff board in substitution for the board of customs would be final. No such thing. It is provided in the statute which I shall take the trouble to quote, chapter 42, section 38, subsection 4:
The board of customs may review the decision of any appraiser or collector as to the principal markets of the country or as to the fair market value of goods for duty purposes; and the decision of the board of customs in regard to such

Tariff Board-Mr. Ryckman
principal markets, and value of goods for duty purposes in any case or class of eases, shall, when approved by the minister, be final and conclusive except as otherwise provided in this act.
The legislation before us as drafted does not make any change in that law except that it substitutes the tariff board for the board of customs. You will note, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a final decision. I am not saying that it should not be. I think I would be satisfied if such a tariff board did give a final decision, but its decision is not final until approved by the Minister of National Revenue. Let, therefore, those of us who were perturbed because of the onslaught that was made on the Combines Investigation Act, and at the idea of something novel being done, and at the thought of the rights of the people being taken away, put our minds at rest. There is nothing novel being done. This simply substitutes the tariff board for the board of customs. The good people of this country are not going to lose thereby if a proper tariff board is appointed.
As to the salaries of the board being $12,000 for the chairman and $10,000 for each of the other two members, and their appointment being for a ten year period, I believe that the individual judgment of the members of this house will bear me out when I say that you cannot get good men who understand these things, men in whom you have confidence and who will give their time to such important matters as come before the National Revenue department, unless you pay for them. I say now, and it is just as true as I am standing here, that this country has lost money in large amounts because it has not been able to get proper services in its National Revenue department, and I am not reflecting on a single person in the department to-day when I say that. But, oh, how money could be saved to this country by propel- business judgment being applied to the collection of revenue! That is one of the things which this country sooner or later will find out. If you offer a position on the board at a salary of $8,000 to a man for two or three or four years, he will say, "I would have no abiding place and therefore I cannot afford to give up the position I have or the prospect I have of getting some better position." The reason why we seek to have these amounts put in the bill is in order that we may get competent men who understand this business, and who I hope in all things will be impartial in the interests of the country. That is the object of the salaries and the ten year term. Those who would rather
have it partisan, let them have it so. I can understand them because I have listened to that argument before, but as for me I say that it would be much in the interests of the country if we could get a board of three men such as this bill proposes, and have those men give their time unreservedly in the service of this country to better its finances.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will my hon. friend the Minister of National Revenue permit me just another question in reference to the customs board? I do not think he met the point I had in mind and which I stated this afternoon. My point was this, that as the law now stands there is, so I understand, an appeal from the customs board to the governor in council. That appeal is taken away by this bill, or at any rate it does not appear in the bill. I think I did full justice to the right hon. the Prime Minister this afternoon in saying that I understood from his remarks on the resolution he had left that matter open and that there would be opportunity, I assumed, to discuss it in committee. If in committee that appeal is provided for, my objection will be met in most pant, but if it is not provided for, may I point out the position in which we on this side of the house are placed should we come into office at any time within the next ten years? So long as hon. gentlemen opposite are in office an appeal from the board of customs to the governor in council means that they have it in their own hands to give their version of the judgment or .decision that has been given, and they will undoubtedly do so in accordance with the point of view which they hold. But should a Liberal administration come into office, it would find itself in this position: It would have to accept the position of the board or court which hon. gentlemen opposite have appointed, and there would be no appeal from that court to the governor in council for the final word.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not the governor in council, but the minister.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: My right hon. friend has asked me a. question. My answer is this: In no respect does this bill, as I have read it, alter the Customs Act, chapter 42 of the revised statutes of 1927, except to substitute a tariff board for the board of customs.


James Layton Ralston: I do not propose at this late hour
to take very much of the time of the house, but there is one feature in connection with this bill which has been discussed, and which is referred to in the amendment which has been moved, on which I have such strong
Tariff Board-Mr. Ralston

views that I feel I should take this opportunity of expressing them. Let me first say that I appreciate the fact that the hon. Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Ryckman), who has just sat down, has at least come out and faced man-fashion the objection which has been made frequently from this side of the house, and an objection which is no objection in detail but an objection which I believe goes to the fundamentals of this bill.
With regard to his remarks regarding the jurisdiction given to this tariff board to replace the board of customs, let me remind him that the shocking state of affairs to which he refers, namely, that the board of customs could sit and review the decision of its chairman, is not unknown in legislation which was passed by my hon. friend's friends not very many years ago. Let me remind the house that pensions in this country for ex-service men were administered by a board of pension commissioners, and that the only appeal which was provided by the act which was passed by my hon. friend's friends was an appeal to two members of the very board which had made the decision in the first place, and that was the only method of review. There was no reference to a minister, no opportunity to go to the governor in council. The applicant who had been refused his pension had simply the questionable privilege of going back to two of the same men who had made the decision in the first place and asking that their decision be reversed. So my hon. friend should not be too greatly shocked at the state of affairs which he presented. Let me impress it upon the house, if I may, that the decision to which he refers and the shocking state of affairs which he portrays does not appear in just exactly the same light that he would have	it	when he	admits	that	thedecision of the board of customs is a decision which must	be	approved	by the	minister,and is not	a	decision	such as	that	ofof the pension board which was final and not subject to review by anybody. As I said before my hon. friend has dealt fairly and as squarely	as	he could	with one of	the
vital objections to the bill. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) in the course of his eloquent speech left until the very last minute his remarks concerning this fundamental objection, namely, the ten year tenure of office of the members of the board. The hon. member who spoke to us later in the evening skated entirely over the matter of tenure of office.
I venture to say that we have now before us the consummation of a series of enactments the like of which has not been seen
fMr. Ralston.]
in any responsible government anywhere. This series began last September, and I am afraid with such enactments following each other so thick and fast we are becoming callous and hardly realize what is taking place. Last September with practically no consideration there were amendments to about two hundred tariff items, and an entirely new tariff policy was inaugurated at a special session called to deal with unemployment. At that same session power was given to the minister practically to revolutionize the tariff by authorizing him through no less than five different sections of the Customs Act to fix arbitrarily the prices of commodities, and consequently to fix the tariff on goods which must be paid by the people of this country. Following that, and without any tariff board, there is brought down at this session another long list of increases to the tariff. I believe reconsideration is already being given to quite a few of those tariff items due to the fact that in the first instance proper consideration was not given. In addition to the tariff changes proposed in the budget now before us we have here a bill which by its provisions would saddle the country with a board which would take tariff matters largely out of the hands of the representatives of the people, and the government asks that the board be placed in office for a period of ten years. It may be that the people of Canada realize what has taken place during the last eight or ten months, but if by chance they are not aw'are of the changes which have taken place I think it is the duty of hon. members at least to bring it to their attention.
The powers of the proposed board have already been thoroughly discussed. I should like to remind the house again however that the proposed board has the power to make an inquiry and report on what increases or decreases in rates of duties are necessary to equalize the differences in costs of production, to make a report on the effect of the increases or decreases of existing rates of duty, to make a report on the extent to which the consumer is being exploited and finally-and this section to my mind is as important as any-by section 4 subsection 5 there is provision that the board is empowered to inquire into any other matter or thing in relation to the trade or commerce of Canada which the governor in council sees fit to refer to the board for inquiry and report. I would ask hon. members to bear in mind that all these inquiries are to be made under the direction of the minister. To my mind that would indicate how nonpartisan and independent the board is really expected to be.

Tariff Board-Mr. Ralston
A few minutes ago my hon. friend pointed out that the board will be in a position to check up on hon. gentlemen speaking throughout the country. He said that when certain statements are made with regard to the effect of the tariff, the report of the board will be available and such report will show the actual effect of the tariff measures in question. Of course such a condition would suit my hon. friend perfectly. He would have the report of a board appointed by his own friends, a board appointed in full sympathy with this government and he could be quite sure that such reports would not be likely to support any conclusions which those from this side of the house might draw. I am not suggesting that the members of the board will be dishonest or partisan, in the party sense of the word. I do suggest however that they will be of a cast of mind which will be sympathetic with the policies of this government, and they will be people in whom this government will have confidence, people who will have the confidence of this government and people whose whole outlook in connection with the economic and tariff situations of this country will be the outlook of my hon. friends opposite.
Those men will be appointed not simply for the life of this government but for ten years. My hon. friend has given the one and only reason I have heard for the ten year appointment. He has said that it is impossible to get men of standing and quality for $12,000 a year, in the case of the chairman, or $10,000 a year in the case of the other commissioners, if such a term is not provided. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that that is not always the case. I do not think my right hon. friend the Prime Minister would experience any difficulty in finding gentlemen qualified to be members of the government, men who would be perfectly willing to accept positions in the cabinet without any guarantee whatever as to tenure of office. They would be perfectly willing to assume cabinet positions during the life of the government. But if to get men to take office during pleasure, as many government appointees do, he has to pay more salary, let him do so; if a shorter term requires a bigger salary to get the men he wants, let him get them. We say to him, however, that it is unreasonable to make provision for a board which can practically legislate in tariff matters in a manner favourable to the policy of the present government, and expect that board to continue in office when a change of government occurs. I would remind him that when a change occurs there is an indication that the views of the people of the country have changed, and if my hon. friend's proposal were
carried out the people would find frozen into office a board which would be making tariffs in direct contradiction to policies expressed by them at a general election. I submit that for my hon. friends to place a board of that kind in power is contrary to all the principles of responsible government. Neither the Board of Railway Commissioners, nor the judges, nor the Farm Loan Board or any of those bodies decide questions of political policy. They are appointed by statute to perform definite duties which have nothing to do with political questions. The distinction lies in the fact that the board now proposed is to advise what statutes shall be passed by the people's representatives. The proposed board will make findings and express opinions upon which will be based legislative enactments which from time to time will be passed by parliament in connection with tariff matters. So I submit the amendment which has been moved by my hon. friend from Hants-King (Mr. Usley), in a manner which has done credit not only to himself and his constituency and to this house but to Canadian public life, is an amendment which should receive the favourable consideration of this house, and in all seriousness I submit it should receive the favourable consideration of the government.
The bill before us has in it some peculiar provisions. My hon. friends say the proposed board is to be advisory in character. I have 'pointed out that it is under the direction of the minister that the board makes a report in cases vital to tariff matters which constitute *the most contentious feature in our political system. But I find further that the proposed board is to be a court of record and, bless your soul, that it is to have a seal of which judicial notice must be taken. The seal with the inseparable red ribbon will no doubt when produced represent the ipse dixit and the final word with regard to tariff. I do not know why my hon. friend has suggested the seal in connection with the tariff board if it is only to be an advisory and fact finding board. However, we are going to have the solemnity of a seal of which judicial notice must be taken. I do not know how the reports will be signed-I would not suggest that they should be signed in blood but I would suggest that with all this formality there should be some special ceremonial regarding the signature. It is unfortunate that there seems to be no provision as to court costume to be worn by those distinguished gentlemen who will mount the judicial rostrum to decide these questions of tariff. All these powers and these emblems would certainly give the impression that the proposed board is to exercise definite and
Tariff Board-Mr. Ralston

far-reaching authority in connection with the tariff and trade policies of Canada.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, one further point. I have said that I did not suggest and, I am not suggesting now, that it is to be a partisan board in the sense that it is to do the political behests of the government that happens to be in office, but I am trying to emphasize that it will be a board of the cast of mind which my hon. friends opposite have. One may speak of men of the greatest honesty and of the highest degree of non-partisanship in the world, and yet recognize that those men have their own particular viewpoint, their own particular outlook on life. Let me give an illustration. My right hon. friend the Prime Minister will remember the late Lord Haldane, who frequently presided over the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council when questions concerning the effect of the British North America Act were being considered. Lawyers came to know that Lord Haldane had a cast of mind which looked always-and I say it with the greatest respect and the greatest deference-from the point of view of the provinces rather than of the dominion; he felt that was the position from which constitutional questions ought to be approached. Only the other day I saw in a magazine an article giving an analysis of the outlook of the learned judges composing the Supreme court of the United States, and pointing out certain members of that distinguished count who could be expected to look at questions from what might be called the .liberal as distinguished from the conservative view point-using those terms without reference to political parties, of course- I do not care how detached a judicial personage, or any oither individual may be, he does have a certain cast of mind, a certain outlook. It is a certain high tariff cast of mind, a certain high tariff outlook which this bill, unless amended, will fasten upon us for a period of ten years.
It is because of that particular feature that I so strenuously oppose the bill; and I heartily support the amendment. I would expect of course that a board of this kind would have the confidence of the government.
I think it should have the confidence of the government. The board is really the servant of the government. It is for the purpose, whatever government may be in office, of making findings in respect of these important matters of tariff, and it stands to reason that it must have the confidence of the government. In turn, the government must have the confidence of the board. Just as this house represent the views of the people of Canada, as expressed at the polls, so I say

the proposed tariff board, which is for the purpose of expressing tariff views and assisting the government in relation thereto, should reflect the tariff outlook of the government in power. I repeat, the only way in which that can be done is that my right hon. friend should make the tenure of the members of the board coterminous with the tenure of the administration which they advise, and then permit the succeeding administration, which may represent an entirely different point of view on the part of the people to select its own set of tariff advisers.
So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the point made in the amendment is the all important point. Not that there are not other matters which are not important. For instance the proposal that a member of the board shall not be eligible to be a candidate for election to the House of Commons until after the expiration of two years from the date when he ceased to be a member of the board is a most unusual and absolutely unheard of provision in a Canadian statute, but I pass that over. I know it will be in vain, but I urge on my right hon. friend as strongly as I can that this board should be made simply the servant of the government of the day for the purpose of collecting and summarizing evidence and making reports thereon on which such government may base their tariff legislation, leaving succeeding governments free to appoint their advisers with an outlook in keeping with the views of the country as expressed at the polls.


John Livingstone Brown: I was paired with the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Willis). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the
hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cot-nam). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: I -was paired with the
hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Arthurs,
Bell (Hamilton),
Black (Halifax), Barber,
Bell (St. Antoine),
Bell (St. John-Albert), Bowman,
Baker,
Casselman,
Cantley,
Cotnam,
Cowan (Port Arthur), Dor ion.
Edwards,
Embury,
Fortin,
Garland (Carleton), Gobeil,
Gagnon,
Gott,
Messrs:
Boucher,
Mercier (St. Henri), Dubuc,
Totzke,
Raymond,
Dubois,
Hanson (Skeena), Bertrand,
Howard,
Cardin,
Hurtubise,
Ilsley,
Verville,
Elliott,
Bothwell,
Fafard,
Goulet,
Rheaume,
Boulanger, Rutherford,


Mr. REID:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


John Vallance: I was paired with the
hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Wilson). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. BARBER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Totzke). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.
Privilege-Mr. Duff


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. SAUVE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. ROBITAILLE:: I was paired with the hon. member for East Simcoe (Mr. Thompson). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. RHEAUME:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Compton (Mr. Gobeil). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.
(Owing to the impossibility of recording pairs announced simultaneously, this list is incomplete.)


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, June 30, 1931.