Mr.  J. D.@: TAYLOR (New Westminster) moved the adoption of the- first report of the Select Standing Committee to supervise the debates of the House, which reads as follows:
Your committee have had under consideration the subject of the organization of the office of the official reporters, and, with a view to promoting efficiency and economy, would recommend:-
(1)	That the official heretofore styled the
chief reporter be henceforth designated editor of debates, and be given the direction and supervision of the reporting and of all other matters connected with the preparation and publication of the official report other than the translating; and that he be exempted from the work of reporting except in cases of emergency.	,	.
(2)	That one of the reporters be designated associate editor of debates, and, in the absence of the editor, discharge his duties and

have his authority, but when not so acting continue as at present to take his turn at reporting.
(3)	That the official, at present styled assistant to the chief reporter, be designated assistant editor.
(4)	That, to enable this arrangement to be carried out, it is advisable that an additional English reporter be appointed.
(5)	That, with a view of attaining greater efficiency in connection with the reporting, the proper authorities be requested to give effect to the application of two members of the reporting staff who are applying for supex

annuation.
(6)	That the analytical index to the English and French editions of the official .report of the debates of this House be discontinued forthwith.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would like to have a word of explanation on this report.


Mr. TAYLOR.: There are three recommendations in this report. The first deals with the organization of the ' Hansard ' staff and it is precisely the same as contained in ia report presented to this House last year by the Debates Committee and which stood over because exception was taken to it in that the committee thought tit to recommend certain of the reporters by name, it being considered that in that respect the committee was exceeding its *authority. The report is presented again this year and there is omitted from it anything that seemed to be in excess of the authority of the committee. The first recommendation is that the chief reporter, as he has been called, shall be relieved from duty on the floor of the House and assigned to duty in the ' Hansard ' office as editor and controller of ' Hansard.'
The next recommendation is that another member of the staff shall be known as associate editor, who will take the place of the editor in case the latter is absent; the associate editor to do duty as usual on the floor of the House. In place of the editor an additional member is to be added to the reporting staff. The next division of the report deals with the application for superannuation made by two very old members of the ' Hansard ' staff who have rendered faithful service in their time. They were the very best men in the country, but they are no longer equal to the arduous duties imposed on them, and after . long years of -service they ask to be retired. The committee recommends that the proper authority should give effect to these two applications for superannuation. The last section of -the report d-e-ails with what is known -as the -analytical index. This index was discussed in the House not long ago by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mir. Foster), who stated he -had examined it -and found it was of no use. He -appealed to the Minister of Finance for an opinion and Mr. Fielding replied ias reported in ' Hansard V ' If it is not held against me, I -must s-ay that I have never seen it.' Upon inquiry we have found that this analytical index is some years behind and that the last copy for the session before last was -only delivered in the office of the King's Printer in January of thi-s year. The fact -that no person has noticed that the index i-s two years behind seems . to show that no interest whatever is taken in it. Upon finding that this index cost $4,600 l-ast year to -prepare and print, the committee thought they were performing their duty iu recommending that the index be discontinued. Summarized, the report recommends: the superannuation of tw-o reporters well entitled to superannuation, the -addition of one member to the staff and the abolishing of the index which cost $4,600 a ye-aa: and which is of no use.


Right Hon.   S@: May I -ask the hon. gentleman who are the reporters who are recommended for superannuation?


George Taylor: Mr. Duggan and Mr. Abbott.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I think nobody will object to the superannuation of Mr. Abbott and Mr. Duggan. They were very good reporters, as everybody knows, and the House will regret that they have been obliged to ask for superannuation, but of course, as with everybody else, the years of service have told upon them, and they feel they are no longer equal to the arduous task of reporting on the floor of this House. May I ask, if the analytical index is discontinued, whose services will be dispensed with?


George Taylor: I am sorry to say that I cannot tell upon whom this will fall, because, as nearly as I understand it, the persons who have done the work are not the persons to whom the cheques issue.
I think I can tell the persons who have done the work, but I do not know in whose name the cheques issue.


Mr. G. W. FOWLER (Kings and Albert).: May I ask a question with regard to the appointment of officials upon the ' Hansard ' staff. As I understand it there are now some vacancies, and I noticed in the last issue of the ' Gazette ' an advertisement to which I would call the attention of the House. It is headed ' Civil Service Commission ' and it gives notice to the public that there are vacancies on the ' Hansard ' staff, and it states the requirements for the position of a ' Hansard ' reporter. Some of it is rather amusing. In the first place I had always supposed that vacancies on the ' Hansard ' -staff were to be filled from class ' B ' of the second division, which includes the gentlemen who ere now acting as reporters for the various

committees of the House. There are three gentlemen acting in that capacity, and they are very competent. I think any person who has had experience in the committees of this House for a number of years will bear me out in saying that these gentlemen are most competent. I always supposed that the reporting of the committees was a sort of training school for reporting on the floor of the House, but I find that the Civi'l Service Commission has advertised far and wide throughout the country for persons to come forward and pass the examination. There is no doubt but that some of the questions specified by the Civil Service Commission are necessary, and perhaps the one to which I am going to call attention is necessary too, but it does seem to me that the Civil Service Commission might have been more sparing of the feelings of the members of the House and left this requirement out:
4. Sufficient literary skill to reconstruct in correct and concise form, with proper paragraphing and punctuation, passages containing awkward or ungrammatical expressions, or words inaccurately used.
The Civil Service Commission possibly from practical experience in listening to the debates in this House, seem to think it necessary that a high degree of skill along the lines of reconstruction of sentences should be possessed by any person appointed a ' Hansard ' reporter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: However much the Civil Service Commission may be impressed by that idea, it would perhaps have been just as well to have said nothing about it in the advertisement, but to have examined the candidates upon it when they presented themselves for examination.
There are many other things in connection with these examinations which seem peculiar. It is laill very well to pass these examinations, and you may ask what objection would the gentlemen who are now' in Subdivision ' B ' have to pres*enting themselves for examination for promotion to Subdivision ' A ' as ' Hansard ' reporters, but when one comes to look over the list of subjects of which a knowledge must be possessed by candidates, one is not surprised that these gentlemen would rather not present themselves for examination, however well equipped for the general duties of ' Hansard ' reporters they might be. For instance here are some of the subjects:	They are to
write an essay on: * The Follies of Fashion.' Now what in the world 'that has to do with any qualification for a ' Hansard ' reporter I do not know. Some of the members of the ' Hansard ' staff we know are of the ' glass of fashion, and the mould of form.' I have one in my mind's eye at the pre-Mr. FOWLER.
sent time, but 1 think we can leave that to the individual preference of the gentleman himself rather than ask him to be proficient and efficient along those lines. Then also they are to w'rite an, essay on the ' Boy Scouts ' or ' My Favourite Recreation ', w'hether that be at the Golf Club or at the bar, or w'here. Bicycling is another subject. The great snow storm is another.
I suppose, as my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries suggests, that was on the 21st of September. The ' First Money I Ever Earned ' is another that the examiners may see whether or not the candidate is economical in his business affairs.
It does seem to me that this promotion should be by merit and should be made from the service. I am sure I will be supported by every member of this House who has knowledge of the subject in the statement that the gentlemen who now occupy the positions in Subdivision ' B ' are thoroughly competent and efficient in every way and they have had experience as ' Hansard ' reporters. I think it might very w'ell be left to the chief of the ' Han-. sard ' staff to say whether or not these gentlemen are competent. He would be a better judge of the subject than would be the Civil Service Commission, because he has had a far greater practical experience along these lines than has any gentleman who is an examiner for the Civil Service Commission. The gentlemen now in Class ' B ' have had the very best possible experience to qualify them as ' Hansard ' reporters. They have sat for years in the press gallery of this House. They have gone around the country reporting the speeches of members and the long experience they have had has given them an insight into the political history of this country which it is most essential to any ' Hansard ' reporter to have in order that he may do his work correctly, intelligently and well. It is important, I suppose, that the ' Hansard ' reporters should have the ability to reconstruct sentences because many of us are apt to make errors in hasty extempore speech, but the great essential, it seems to me, is to have a close and in tiraate knowledge of the political history of the country. I hope that the government who have charge of this matter will allow these examinations to go on as the Civil Service Commission have advertised them, but that they will be for men to take the place of the gentlemen now in Subdivision ' B ', who will be promoted to Subdivision ' A '.


Haughton Lennox: I noticed this advertisement in the ' Gazette,' and my attention was brought to this matter in another way. Without wishing to at all interfere with the functions of the Board of Civil Service Commissioners, I must say that, to my

mind, an examination such as appears to be aimed at there, is not the best means of getting the proper men to discharge the important duties of ' Hansard * reporters for this House. I realize, as probably most of the older members realize, that our sentences at times require to be reconstructed, and that a mere slavish report of the proceedings of the House would be very unsatisfactory, particularly to the members who have been guilty of the utterances, and for that reason, I think that a mere competitive examination is not the best means of securing just the men we require as ' Hansard ' reporters. I have a good deal of experience with the three gentlemen who have already been alluded to, Mr. Dickson, Mr. Matthews and Mr. Blue. I know that one or two of these gentlemen received a very bad early education upon ' The Globe 3 reporting staff, but I had experience of them since, and I have great pleasure in certifying to the splendid character of the work they do in the committees where they report. With the experience they have had, I would be very sorry indeed, to see them passed over at this time, when we have an opportunity of placing them upon our regular ' Hansard 3 staff. I believe that the training in the press gallery here, a practical experience of these inaccuracies committed by some of the other members, I am not speaking of myself, and their experience of public life, fit them in the highest degree for ' Hansard 3 work, and I believe that we will be wise in getting from the ranks of those who report our speeches in the gallery, the men to report them on the floor of the House. We have had a happy experience of the aippointment of men from the press gallery to the 'Hansard3 staff, the men thus recruited to that staff have been most efficient reporters, and the three gentlemen to whom I have alluded, are men of that class. I think I am expressing the feeling of a good many members, when I say that I hope no system will be pursued which will compel men who have had that amount of experience and have given such proof of efficiency as they have given, to enter the lists upon a competitive examination, which may be a fairly good test of rapidity and slavish exactitude, but which is not a test of the editorial skill and judgment which is required in a ' Hansard3 reporter.


Mr. SINCLAIR.: I am sorry to hear that the committee have decided to discontinue the analytical index. I have found the index very useful myself. It gives a short synopsis of the speeches. _
And it is much easier to refer to it than wade through so many volumes of ' Hansard '. I was surprised to find, on looking through the index, that tlhere were only three or four years in which the English edition was printed at all. I thought at
first that it was continued right from the time the analytical index started, but I find that the English edition was printed one or two years, then discontinued, then started again and kept up a couple of years and then again discontinued. 1 do not know what other hon. gentlemen may-think, but I have found the analytical index very useful, and I trust that it will be continued. I would suggest therefore that the committee should reconsider their report. I think it would be well worth their while to devote some further consideration to this matter, look over it again before coming to the conclusion that this index should be abolished.


Mr. BENNETT (Simcoe).: I have before me a copy of the analytical index, and I must say it is a most useful compendium of the proceedings of the House. For my part I shall certainly be at a loss in hunting up statements made by minis-terfe and others should this recommendation to abolish the index be adopted. Take, for instance, the second session in 1906 when the policy of constructing the National Transcontinental was being discussed and when the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) had, as was naturally to be expected to answer a great many questions, how could one turn up any of these without this index? Do away with it and if you want to refer to any statement made on any subject, you will have to look through three or four volumes of ' Hansard 3. Why should any hon. gentleman he obliged to attempt this if he wanted to find out what was said on any particular occasion or subject? With the aid of an analytical index however he can find without any trouble the particular page where the statement is printed to which he wishes to refer. Take again the naval policy of the late government. The right hon. the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) answered a great many queries on that subject, which are to be found scattered through hundreds* of pages of ' Hansard Without the aid of this index, it would be impossible to discover any particular one of these without going to the almost impossible labour of wading through every page of the reports. This index costs about $4,000, and possibly that cost might be cut down by judicious condensation and some of the time be saved that is now taken in making it, but I think the expenditure serves a most useful purpose. If any hon. gentleman wishes to refresh his memory at any time in regard to any debate, he has in the analytical index the most ready adjunct for that purpose. As regards the filling of vacancies on the reporting staff, I think it would be grossly unfair to the gentlemen who are now on the reporting staff of the House of Commons that they should not be given the preference and

the promotion to which they are entitled. Messrs. Dickson, Matthews and Blue have had long experience in this House, they are well known to the members of this House, and have proved themselves most competent at their work. Every hon. gentlemen, particularly from the province of Ontario, who has had anything to do with politics in the past 20 years will know that these gentlemen have attended all the large political meetings in that province and consequently should be more at home in reporting the debates than any new man could possibly be.
I hope the committee will be pleased to withdraw their report, consider the matter and bring down another report, leaving the matter as it was, namely, that the Debates Committee shall consider any applications submitted to them, and then let the House adopt that report as they see fit, and leave out the recommendation to do away with the analytical index.


Mr. SPEAKER.: That portion of the notice in the official ' Gazette,' which deals with the examination of candidates for the position vacant on the ' Hansard ' staff, has nothing to do with the report of the Debates Committee at all. The Civil Service law provides that these vacancies have to be filled in a certain way. In pursuance of that law, I asked the commission to find three men competent to do the work, leaving the competition open to all. Names have been mentioned, no doubt, from their experience as newspaper men and as reporting the proceedings of this House and its committees, they will be more likely to distance their competitors. I have simply taken that which the Act provides should be taken. As regards the other portion of the report, that- is altogether another matter with which the Civil Service Commission have nothing to do, but which [DOT] is entirely in the hands of this House.


Mr. MIJDDLEBRO.: I would like to give the opinion to the House of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster), and the late Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), with reference to the utility of this analytical index. Discussing that subject in the session of 1907-8, the Minister of Trade' and Commerce used these words:
If there is one-useless thing that comes to a member after it is two years old, it is that analytical index to ' Hansard/ which is almost as large as ' Hansard ' itself. I do not know whether anybody ever looks at it. I have looked at it only to wonder how the ingenuity of man could devise anything that could possibly be so useless. You open it and think you are going to get something, but you get a mere fragment, and you have to go to the ' Hansard.' But it comes out some two years after ' Hansard ' and is of no earthly use. It is a large volume, pretty Mr. BENNETT (East Simcoe).
nearly as large as the Trade and Navigation reports. What it pretends to do is to give a digest of what everybody says on every subject, and as it is impossible to do that to any extent or with any accuracy, it defeats the very purpose for which it was intended. It is a perfectly useless piece of mechanism, and I do not see why it is kept on. Other members may find some use for it, hut it has never been of any earthly use to me. Might I ask the Minister of Finance if he ever used it?
Mr. Fielding then said:
If it could not he held up against me, I have never seen it.
I have taken the trouble to inquire of lion, members around me, and have not found one who would say that he had ever used this analytical index. Some of them have never seen it. I certainly never did, and it seems to me perfectly useless that we should spend $4,000 a year on something that nobody ever makes any use of.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would ask the chairman of the committee to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), and withdraw the report for the present. The analytical index is certainly a most valuable adjunct to ' Hansard.' In reply to the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Middlebro), it seems to me, speaking from memory, that the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. FostiCr), on the occasion to which the hon. gentleman refers, afterwards corrected his opinion and withdrew his opposition to the continuation of this index. I speak of course, subject to correction. Now with regard to the appointments on the reporting staff, the Civil Service Commissioners have only followed the law. These appointments have to be made, under the law,' by the members of the Civil Service Commission. I think, however, the commissioners would have shown better judgment if they had asked competitors to write an essay on folly and fashion, and how I earned my first money, or a snowstorm, than have asked them to give us something of the contemporary history of Canada. Messrs. Dickson, Blue and Matthews, who are at present in the employ of the House on the reporting staff of the committee, are very competent men. They are quite familiar with the. political history of Canada, and I think they should come out ahead of anybody else in any competition as regards fitness for work of this kind.


Rt. Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).: I would suggest that it might be advisable to adopt all of this report except the paragraph relating to the analytical index. As regards the new appointments, the Civil Service Commissioners have to follow the law and cannot take any other course. I entirely concur in the

opinion that the gentlemen on the staff of the committees have been doing excellent work, and should have every consideration possible.


George Taylor: I wish to say that the Debates Committee are entirely in the hands of the House. We had no other idea except to serve the purpose of the House in procuring an efficient report of the debates and in eliminating what we thought to be entirely useless.
We attempted last year to influence the course of things so far as the appointment of the staff is concerned, and found to our regret that we had no power in that connection. It was only because we felt that we would be exceeding our power that we did not make r-~ suggestion this year as to the persons who should be appointed to the debates staff. Speaking for myself, I know very well the three gentlemen mentioned and should be pleased indeed to have authority to recommend their appointment, because I do not think we could get three better men. However, as to the portion of the report which deals with the analytical index, I am quite sure that no member of the Debates Committee wishes to force that on the attention of the House; therefore, _ with the permission of the House, and in deference to the wishes of the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) I ask permission to withdraw that recommendation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is it the pleasure of the House that that report be concurred in, with the exception of paragraph 6, which deals with the analytical index?
Report, amended as proposed, concurred in.



AID AND ENCOURAGEMENT OF AGRICULTURE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 100) for the aid and encouragement of agriculture. He said:
Mr. Speaker, in asking leave to introduce the Bill which stands in my name I trust the House will permit a reference to matters which, though not directly explanatory of the Bill, do in a very real sense refer to the reason for introducing a measure of such a character. It will be recalled that, in the speech from the Throne the following passage occurred:
It is essential to recognize that, in a country possessing so great an area of fertile land as that with which this Dominion is happily endowed, the great basic industry is agriculture. My advisers are convinced that the time has come when greater aid and encouragement should be given to those who are engaged in the cultivation of the land. To
this end, a measure will he introduced under which it is hoped that there may be co-operation between the Dominion and the various provinces, for the purpose of assisting and encouraging our farmers to secure the best results in production, and at the same time preserve the fertility of the soil.
This paragraph may be instanced as an implementing of the promise made during the recent elections by the right hon. gentleman, the leader of the House.
Since assuming office as Minister of Agriculture, I have endeavoured to give the question of aid to agriculture in Canada the serious consideration which the importance of the matter warrants. The more closely the subject was studied, however, the more clear it became that a policy of co-operation with the provinces for the betterment of agricultural conditions throughout Canada could not be worked out in any intelligent or satisfactory manner without a thorough examination of the actual agricultural conditions of the country and exhaustive survey of the work being performed by the governments of the various provinces, and without a definite conception of the aims ui the provinces along the lines of agricultural expansion.
Co-operation means something more than mere expenditure of money by federal or provincial authorities. It is true that criticism, perhaps not altogether undeserved, has been directed at governments in this country for not spending enough money in aid of agriculture-. It is not always easy to get the money for such a purpose and we shall agree that, even when obtained, it is not less difficult to spend it wisely. Financial assistance given to provinces, associations or individuals, which results in the tendency to look entirely for external help in the solution of agricultural problems, is certainly not wise assistance. The only justification for increased governmental aid-the very meaning of the word cooperation-is that assistance, while making for the healthy expansion of agriculture, should stimulate individual energy and better enable provinces, associations and individuals to help themselves.
We have been faced with the same difficulties in Canada that have faced the people of other countries. Many of those countries have revolutionized their agricultural methods in recent years and have organized their Departments of Agriculture in such a way that' all branches are directly related to, or closely associated wub, this industry.
Co-operation in its broadest sense has been fairly systematized, working along lines of co-ordination of work with the provinces and with the associations. This is not the time to touch that phase of the subject which is concerned with agricultural co-operative societies though it might be said in passing that the principle has been
[Stage Direction]
adopted to an increasing extent in Europe, and that to-day in Germany alone there is an imperial federation of co-operative societies, which represents externally and officially the interests of more than 19,000 co-operative societies, comprising nearly two million members. There is much to learn from other nations. We are young. The potentialities of our country are of a magnitude not yet grasped by any of us. We have already accomplished much, and if mistakes have been made, or injudicious courses embarked on, there is ample time to rectify the mistakes and direct our energies to better purpose.
As there has been a lack of full co-ordination of practical agricultural work in the past in this -country, between the provincial and federal governments, so also there has been a lack of legislative co-ordination. The British North America Act, article 95, states as follows:
In each province the legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province and to immigration into the province, and it is hereby declared that the parliament of Canada may, from time to time, make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and in relation to immigration into all or any of the provinces, and any law of the legislature of a province relative to agriculture or immigration shall have effect in and for the province as long as and -as far only as it is not repugnant to any Act of the parliament of Canada.
In respect to this, Lord Carnarvon in a debate in "the House of Lords at the time when the British North America Act was passed remarked:
The real object which we have in view is to give to the central government those high functions and almost sovereign power by which general principles and uniformity of legislation may be secured in these questions that are of common import to all the provinces, and at the same time to retain for each province so ample a measure of municipal liberty and self-government as will allow, and indeed compel them, to exercise those legal powers which they could exercise with great advantage to the community.
He further pointed out that:
There is concurrent power of legislation to he exercised by the central and the local parliaments. It extends over three separate subjects-immigration, agriculture and public works. Of these the two first will in most cases probably be treated by the provincial authorities. They are subjects which in their ordinary character are local, but it is possible that they may have under the changed circumstances of a young country a more general power and therefore a discretionary power of interference is wisely reserved to the central parliament.
Now, Sir, it was having in view these matters which I have touched upon that I became more and more convinced that Mr. BURRELL.
legislation this session designed to embody provisions which would make for a maximum of harmonious co-operation and a minimum of friction between the various parts of Canada was impossible. It seemed clear that it was the duty of the government tq lay a sound foundation for any permanent constructive legislation. Various ways suggested themselves. It might be done-imperfectly I think-through the ordinary channels of the department, involving correspondence with the different provinces. It might be done, also I think imperfectly, by conferences with the various governments of the country. It appeared to me, however, that the purpose the government had in view might better be accomplished by securing the services, if possible, of a man whose practical experience with agricultural problems, and whose broad grasp of agricultural questions should specially qualify him for the performance of this work. It would be his duty to become thoroughly conversant with the conditions, and with the methods carried on in the different provinces; to find out on what lines the educative, legislative and practical agricultural work was- being conducted, and thus put the government in a position which would make for action of a truly co-operative -and stimulative character, and which would tend to the excision of unnecessary duplication, and promote efficiency and progress all round. It was not easy to find such a man, but we believe we have done so, and arrangements are being made by which Mr. C. 0. James of Toronto will devote homself to the task, the nature of which I have outlined. I need hardly state what the House well knows that Mr. James has qualifications peculiarly fitting him for this work; he has been for more than a quarter of a century the deputy Minister of Agriculture for the Province of Ontario-in that capacity he has had much to do with the notable advance that Ontario has made in agriculture; his reputation is more than a provincial one, and I think that the House will agree that substantial benefit will accrue to the country as a result Oif appointing Mr. James as a special commissioner for this work.
This, of course, will involve a severance of Mr. James' relations with the Ontario government, and here I may read to the House what Mr. Duff, Minister of Agriculture, says of Mr. James:
I repeat that you could not do better from the standpoint of Canadian agriculture than to secure the services of Mr. James, and I trust the plan you will evolve will redound very largely to the benefit of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, to come directly to the present Bill, it has been felt by the government that, though the general policy in respect to co-operation with the provin-

ces cannot well be worked out under the present conditions, yet it would only be keeping faith to do at least something in the way of aid this year. Accordingly, although I do not want to be understood as necessarily accepting the principle of cash contributions for this purpose as a permanent policy, the Bill which I am asking leave to introduce provides for powers to assist the provinces by means of direct grants of money under agreement between this government and the provincial governments, it being understood, of course, that such moneys will be expended purely for agricultural purposes
The principle upon which grants will be apportioned will be that of division based on population, the census of 1911 governing. The government has given a good deal of consideration to this phase of the matter, and has arrived at the conclusion that the population basis is one which is open to the fewest objections. The question of whether aid of this kind should be given to agriculture need hardly, I think, be debated. We are expending, and have expended, large sums in various public works; we have always liberally assisted railways, have given large subsidies to shipping companies and in various ways contributed financial assistance to the industries of the country. An attempt by more generous financial support to place our great agricultural industry on a better footing is one that I believe will have the cordial support of this House. I may add that there is no desire in this matter to favour this or that of the various provincial governments. We recognize that in every province a government has been placed there by the people, and I am voicing the sentiments of the Prime Minister and his colleagues in saying that the sole purport of this measure is to do what the title declares it is designed for, viz.: to aid and encourage agriculture.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. CLARKE (Essex).: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the report in the morning press that a commission is to be appointed to investigate the Farmers' Bank, is correct. Might I ask whether or not the Prime Minister is in a position to make an announcement to the House on the question?


Robert Laird Borden: Not in a position to-day; probably to-morrow.



OWNERSHIP ANR OPERATION OF GOVERNMENT ELEVATORS.

Mr. KNOWLES.: I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether any decision has been reached to place a sum in
the supplementary estimates for the securing of elevators by lease, purchase, or expropriation.


Robert Laird Borden: That question has not yet been formally considered. An announcement will be made in connection with the supplementary estimates.


William Erskine Knowles: Might. I ask the right hon. gentleman if he sent the following telegram to Mr. F. W. G. Hauftain:-
F.. W. G. Haultain,
Regina. -
Telegram received. The statement you bring to my attention is utterly untrue. Bill noiw before the House includes power for purchase, lease or expropriation of terminal elevators; an appropriation to be placed in the supplementary estimates for this purpose.
(Sgd.) R. L. BORDEN.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, I sent that, but it is quite true that the supplementary estimates have not yet been formally considered, and that an announcement to the House will be made when that takes place.



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 89) to incorporate the Bank of Saskatchewan.-Mr. Knowles.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 16) respecting patents of Thomas Wadge.-Mr. Aikins.
Mr. CURRIE.: Mr. Chairman, before we proceed further with this Bill, I desire to say that this is a measure of very great importance to the public, and especially to the farming community. Unfortunately,
I am not a member of the Private Bills Committee, but perhaps some members of the committee who are here can enlighten the House as to the merits of the proposal contained in this Bill. I understand that this Bill deals with a patent on windstack-ers, that the patent is about to expire and that the Bill is for the purpose of renewing the patent for a further term of years.
I would like to know if that is so, because, if it is, it will add about $100 to the cost of every thresher that our western farmers and our Ontario farmers buy. I understand that every manufacturer of threshing machines in Canada is now making these windstackers, and if we put this Bill through, royalties will continue to be collected to the extent of from $50 t-o $100 on every thresher, Which does not seem to be desirable. I may be wrong, but I am given-to understand that such is the case. I would like some enlightment from a member of the Private Bills Committee.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Under the circumstances mentioned by the hon. member for Sim-

eoe (Mr. Currie), and particularly in the absence of the hon. promoter of the Bill, (Mr. Aikins), I think it well that this Bill should stand.
Progress reported.



PATENTS OF THOMAS D. KAMBAUT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 84) respecting certain patents of Thomas D. Rambaut.-Mr. Amek.
Mr. NESBITT.: What are the patents on?


Mr. ROGERS.: As the member promoting the Bill (Mr. Ames), is not here, you might let it stand.
Progress reported.



QUESTIONS.

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

Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Is it the intention of the honourable the Minister of Justice to introduce legislation during the present session with a view to add to the number of judges in the circuit court of Montreal?
2.	Has the minister received petitions from the Montreal Bar on the subject?


Mr. DOHERTY.: The matter is under consideration. Different communications have been interchanged between the minister and representatives of t'he Montreal Bar with regard to it.


POSTMASTER AT WHITEHEAD, N.S.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1.	Has the postmaster at Whitehead, N.S., been dismissed? If so, for what reason and at whose request ?
2.	Was there an investigation? If so, when and where, and what was the result of the investigation ?
3.	By whom was he replaced, and who recommended his successor?


Mr. PELLETIER:: 1.	(a) Yes. (b) For ipolitical partisanship, on recommendation of Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings.
2.	No. The postmaster was asked twice what he had to say in regard to the charge of partisanship, but he evidently could not deny the charge since he twice evaded giving a straight answer.
3.	Mr. G. H. Munroe, on recommendation of Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings.


MARRIAGE ACT AMENDMENT.
Mr. CARVELL:: 1.	Has the attention of the Minister of Justice been called to the case of the Attorney Mr. MEIGHEN.
General of Ontario, appellant, and the Hamilton Street Railway Company, respondent, as reported in appeal case 1913, page 521, in which it was decided that ' It is not the practice of their lordships to give speculative opinions on hypothetical questions admitted. The questions must arise in concrete cases and involve private rights.'	,
2.	In view of this decision, does the minister consider he will obtain from the Judicial Councillors of the Privy Council answers to the proposed questions of the right honourable Premier with reference to the issue raised by Bill (No. 3) intituled, 'An Act to amend the Marriage Act? '


Mr. BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The minister believes that the questions to be submitted in connection with the proposed amendment to the Marriage Act; will be analogous to those which the court in the case referred to answered, and not to those which it declined to answer.


DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN SOUTH RENFREW.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many employees, permanent and temporary, in the riding of South Renfrew have been dismissed from the public service since the 21st of September last?
2.	What are their names and when were they dismissed?
3.	Who were appointed in their places and when were such appointments made?
i.	What emolument or salary do the said employees receive?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Department of Marine and Fisheries. One in the Fisheries Branch, who had jurisdiction over the whole county of Renfrew.
2.	Paul Lassman.
3.	No. one.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


CONTRACTS IN SOUTH RENFREW.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	What contracts were awarded by the various departments of the government in the riding of South Renfrew since the 21st of September last?
2.	When were such contracts awarded and to whom, for what service and for what amount?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1 and 2. Post Office Department. On October 6, 1911, a contract for rural mail service starting from Arnprior, was awarded to Mr. D. K. Cunningham, at $375 per annum.


DISMISSAL OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEES IN NORTH RENFREW.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	How many employees, permanent or temporary, in the riding of North Renfrew have

been dismissed from the public service since the 21st of September last?
2.	What are their names and when were they dismissed?
3.	Who were appointed in their places and when were such appointments made?
4.	What emolument or salary do the said employees receive?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Department of Marine and Fisheries. One in the Fisheries Branch, who had jurisdiction over the whole county of Renfrew.
2.	Paul Lassman, November 7, 1911.
3.	No one.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


CONTRACTS AWARDED IN NORTH RENFREW.
Mr. PROULX:: 1.	-What contracts have been awarded by the various departments of the government since the 21st of September last for services on works in the riding of North Renfrew?
2.	When, and to whom were such contracts awarded, and for what services and amounts, respectively?


William Roche: 1 and 2. Post Office Department. Three mail contracts have been awarded, viz.: Lapasse and Westmeath; on October 9, 1911, a contract for rural mail service between these points was awarded to Mr. Wm. H. Cavanagh at $260 per annum.
Perretton and Government Road Crossing-On November 23 a contract for rural mail service on this route was awarded to Mr. M. Thrasher at $399 per annum.
Lake Dore and Micksburg-On September 22, 1911, a contract for ordinary mail service wa3 awarded to Mr. M. Dick at $200 per annum.


INSPECTION OP JOINT STOCK COMPANIES.
Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	Has the government the right of inspection of joint stock companies incorporated under the law of Canada?
2.	If so, has the government the right to know the names of the shareholders incorporated under the said laws, and will the government give to the House the names of the shareholders of the Canadian Vickers, Limited, Company?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	No.
2.	There is no means by which the government may demand from a company incorporated under the Companies Act the names of its shareholders.


WHITE HEAD ISLAND LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 1. Has Patrick Conway, lightkeeper at White Head Island, been dismissed? If so,
for what reason and at whose instance?
2.	Was there an investigation?
3.	Was Mr. Conway appointed by order in
council ?	'
4.	Was he dismissed by order in council? If so, on what evidence ?
5.	Who was appointed as his successor?
6.	On whose recommendation was his successor appointed? .


Mr. HAZEN:: -
1.	(a) Yes. (b) Active political partisanship. (e) G. A. R. Rowlings, Esq.
2.	No.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) Yes. (b) On the statement of Mr. G. A. R. Rowlings.
5.	Almon Munroe.
6.	G. A. R. Rowlings, Esq.


HON JUSTICE DUGAS.
Mr. SEVIGNY:: 1.	On what date was the order in council passed appointing Mr. Franpois Octave Dugas, Advocate of Joliette, a judge of the Superior Court for the province of Quebec?
2.	On wliat da*te did) the said Franpois Octave Dugas, receive notice of the order in council or of his appointment.
3.	What is the date of the commission of the said Franpois Octave Dugas, as judge of the Superior Court for the province of Quebec?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	September 6, 1909.
2.	September 9, 1909.
3.	September 6, 1909.


INLAND REVENUE OFFICE AT JOLIETTE
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has a charge been laid against J. C. Robitaille, Inland Revenue Officer of Joliette, Quebec?
2.	If so, what is the nature of said charge and by whom was it made?
3.	Has an investigation been held? If so, what was the result of same?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Of having, during the last Federal election, acted as a political partisan. The charge has been laid by the. member for the constituency of Joliette.
3.	No investigation has been made as the evidence before the department renders such unnecessary.


TIDAL WAVE AT GASPE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has the government been informed that a tidal wave devasted the Gaspe shore in January last, carrying away several houses, destroying many vessels, fishing tackle, etc?
2.	Does the government intend to aid the fishermen of the Gaspe coast who have been ruined by. this tidal wave?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The Department of Marine and Fisheries has received no information in regard to this matter.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


'NIOBE' AND ' RAINBOW.'
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. DEVLIN:
1.	Is it the intention of the government to sell the ' Niobe' and the 'Rainbow?'
2.	If so, what steps have been taken to effect such sale?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	The intention of the government will be made known in due course, when its policy in connection with the Naval Service is announced.
2.	Answered by (1).


PROVISIONING 'RAINBOW' AND ' NIOBE.'
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. DEVLIN:
1.	Have any contracts been made since October, 1, 1911, for provisioning the ' Niobe ' and the 'Rainbow'?
2.	If so, with whom, when, and for what length of time?
Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by (1).


SOREL WHARF.
Mr. LAVALLEE:: 1.	Who were and who are now contractors for the government for the wharfs in deep water at Sorel?
2.	What was the contract price, and what is the balance still due the contractors?


Mr. MONK:: 1.	J. E. Beauchemin, Sorel, Quebec. Contract transferred to Messrs. Geo. Mag-nan and A. E. Pontbriand.
2.	(a) Original contract, $125,000; extension authorized by order in council, $37,889.20. Total, $162,889.20.
_ (b) Amount paid to date, $157,660, leaving a balance to be paid, on completion of contract of $5,220.20.


PRINTING BUREAU CLOCKS.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. WHITE (Alberta):
1.	How many clocks have been installed at the Printing Bureau, and what was the total cost of each installation?
2.	In what departments or rooms are the
said time clocks used?	.
Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Fourteen time-recording clocks. Total cost of installation, $2,557.50.
2.	Ground floor: 3 glocks in hallway; 1 in press room.
First floor: 1 clock in general office; 1 in proof-reading room; 1 in linotype room Mr. LEMIEUX
Second floor: 1 clock in bindery, east wing; 1 clock in bindery, centre; 1 clock in parliamentary room, No. 2.
Third floor: 1 clock in bindery, east wingr 1 clock in bindery, centre; 2 clocks in parliamentary room, No. 1.


FISHERY INSPECTOR IN BELLEVILLE.
Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Has Mr. J. M. Hurley, Dominion Fishery-Inspector, of Belleville, been dismissed? If so, when, by whom at whose request, for what reasons, and on what grounds?
2.	Has the government or any of the ministers received any resolution passed by the Board of Trade of Belleville about Mr. J. M. Hurley since his dismissal? If so, what are the contents thereof and who were the proposers seconders and signatories of said resolution ?
3.	Does the government intend taking any action on above resolutions?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Yes; by Order-in-CounciL 16th December, 1911, at the request of E. Guss Porter, M.P., on the ground of offensive (political partisanship.
2.	The secretary of the Belleville Board of Trade on January 17th ultimo, forwarded a copy of a resolution passed by the Board on motion of Mr. C. M. Reid, seconded by Mr. H. Sneyd. The resolution passed, expressed appreciation of the public spirited services of Mr. J. M. Hurley, and states his co-operation in all matters had always been cheerfully given, and especially in connection with the armouries, railways and the proposed new government docks.
3.	The resolution does not call for any further action.


INQUIRY COMMISSIONER GARCEAU.
Mr. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: 1.	When was Mr. Napoleon Garceau, advocate of Drummondville, appointed commissioner to hold inquiries against public employees ?
2.	Who recommended his appointment?
3.	What is his salary and how -much does he receive for travelling expenses?
4.	Has he been appointed for a fixed territory and what is the territory?
5.	Does he perform his services for all the departments? If not, for what departments does he act?


Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	16th December, 1911.
2.	Minister of Inland Revenue.
3.	Fifteen dollars per day and actual travelling expenses.
4.	Province of Quebec.
5.	No. Department of Inland Revenue only.


RESTAURANT OF PARLIAMENT.
Mr. VERVILLE:: 1.	What was the salary paid to waiters m the restaurant of parliament during last session ?
2.	What is the salary paid to waiters this session ?
1896, of H. St. Amour, postmaster, at St. Amour, county of Prescott, and the appointment of his successor.-Mr. Proulx.


CIVIL SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT.
Robert Laird Borden: 


Mr. MONK:: 
MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all letters, petitions, memorials or other documents received by the Prime Minister or any other member of the government, relating to the passage of a federal marriage law or legislation in regard to the so-called effect of the Ne Temere Decree - Mr. Macdonald.
For a copy of all orders in council passed during the last ten years relating to the abolition or regulation of tolls on canals.- Mr. Sinclair.
lor a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, charges, complaints, reports and other documents relating to the dismissal of Luke Day, Public Works Department, of North Sydney, C.B.-Mr. McKenzie.
lor a copy of all letters, telegrams petitions, charges, complaints, reports and other documents relating to the dismissal of D.
4ff^na dr'	of the Indian
Affairs, of Baddeck, C.B.-Mr. McKenzie.
ior a copy of all letters, telegrams, petitions, charges, complaints, orders in council, reports or other documents in the possesssion ot the Department of Customs relating to the dismissal of Lyman C. Smith from the customs collectorship at Oshawa, Ontario.-Mr Sinclair..
For a copy of all petitions, letters and memorials received by the Minister of Marine and 1* isheries since the first day of October 1911 protesting against the issuing of a fish trap license to Captain John H. Tliorbum, Sand 1 omt, Shelburne county, Nova Scotia.-Mr Law.
F°r a copy of all orders in council, petitions and memorials, passed or received by the government of Canada, respectively, since July 1, 1908, relating to foreign shipping engaged m the coastwise trade in Canada; and also a copy of all correspondence between the government or any department thereof and any person, company ot corporation relating to the same.-Mr. Kyte.
For a. copy of all documents, reports, letters, complaints, &c., relating to the dismissal in
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Amendment Act, 1908, by providing for the appointment of an additional Civil Service Commissioner, who shall have the salary of a deputy head of a department.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 88) to provide for the appointment of a Tar-riff Commission.
On section 3,
Mr. EMMERSON.: Has any action been taken with respect to the personnel of this commission? In one of the New Brunswick papers it was announced that a gentleman representing a New Brunswick constituency was to be appointed.


Mr. WHITE (Leeds).: The personnel of the commission has not been decided upon; it has not been under consideration.
Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. Have the qualifications of the gentlemen who are to occupy these very important positions been considered, and what are they?


William Thomas White: I am convinced that the success of the commission will depend to a very large extent upon its personnel and that we need men of the highest qualifications. As to what the calling, profession or occupation of such men should be I am unable to say at present. The duties of the commission are set out in the Bill and while we have not decided upon the personnel I am of the opinion that we should have men of special aptitude for the duties so prescribed. The commissioners should be of high class ability because their duties will be quasi-judicial and administrative, they should be men of energy, ability and high standing. I cannot say further at the present time because we have not considered the personnel.


Wilfrid Laurier: It goes without saying that the men to be entrusted with the duties contemplated by this Bill should be men of ability within their spheres. It would appear to me, however, that they are simply to be statisticians" simply to collect information, which we have already to some extent in some of our departments. Clause 4 of the Bill sets out that they are to make inquiry into:
(a) The price and cost of raw materials in Canada and elsewhere, and the cost of trans-

portation thereof from the place of production to the place of use or consumption;
(b)	the cost of production in Canada and
elsewhere;	-
(c)	the cost of transportation from the
place of production to the place of use or consumption, whether in Canada or elsewhere *	.
(d)	the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour in Canada and elsewhere:
(e)	the prices received by producers, manufacturers, wholesale dealers, retailers and other distributors in Canada and elsewhere;
(f)	all conditions and factors which affect
or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada;	....
(el generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries.
I repeat that some of this information is already in our statistics which are given to the public from year to year, and, m a larger measure such information is collected in the United States through their Labour Bureau or some such organization. I would say that the proper way to collect such information is by attaching statisticians to the Department of Trade and Commerce or the Department of Finance But it is intended to prepare a brief and to secure information for tne Minister _ of Finance in support of his own conception of what should be considered proper political economy. My hon. friend the other day, in the course of his observations on the second reading, told us he was a protectionist, a moderate protectionist as he qualified his own statement. He did not tell us nor have I read anywhere what is the difference between moderate protection and immoderate protection. I do not know that I ever heard of a protectionist who called himself an immoderate protectionist, he is always moderate. The line of demarcation between moderate and immoderate protection is a hazy one and rather difficult to define, it is like seeking the line between moderate drinking and immoderate drinking. My hon. friend will tell me that his ideas are in favour of moderate protection. For this I do not quarrel with him, these are his view6, but there are men in the country who do not believe in protection, who are in favour of absolute free trade and men who believe in a tariff for revenue only. Then there are_ men who call themselves moderate protectionists who are prepared to go any length in the direction. The object of this Bill is to collect information in order that the minister may find therein a support for his views of moderate protection. Perhaps my hon. friend will disclaim that idea and will tell me that the information collected under this Bill by whomever it may be collected will be uniform and will be for the advantage of ail.	.
There is another manner of collecting information. My hon. friend perhaps remem-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
bers what old Dr. Johnston said in his latter days. Speaking of the time when as a younger man, he was engaged in reporting he stated that his reports were always fair and accurate, but he always took good care that the weak dog got the worst of it. I believe that under this system the free trade dogs and the tariff-for-revenue dogs will also get the worst of this information. Let us have the information which is collected For all, for the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) who does not believe in moderate protection but who is a free trader as well as for those who are moderate protectionists, and even for the man who wants to have the barrier as high as Hainan's gallows.	_
We know now the character of the information that we are going to have. It is to be exactly of the character which I have stated, it will not be impartial information, but it will be information for an object. I may be asked what reason l have to speak as positively as I now speak. I have gathered my conviction from the debate of the other day, more particularly from the speech of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) who, I regret to see, is not now in the House. The hon. member for St. Antoine spoke on this Bill as if he had been the power behind the throne. When my right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Borden) formed his Cabinet everybody expected that the hon. member for St. Antoine would be included in it. Everybody thought that both his exertions and the ability which he is known to possess in financial and business matters entitled him to a seat in that Cabinet. But although he is not a member of the government he seems to be the power behind the throne. He has proved that he has even more power in the government than those who are members of it, and, therefore, I attach a great deal of importance to the information which he has given us, and he has told us in so many words that the men who are to be appointed on this commission are to be in sympathy with the sentiment of the present administration. He stated that in his speech and repeated it in answer to my hon. friend for Carleton, New Brunswick. He said:
I beg your pardon, the words ' high protectionist"' were not used by me. I said they must be in sympathy with the well known sentiment of the present government.
Well, the well-known sentiment of the present government as defined the other day by the Minister of Finance (Mr. White), and vee knew it before, is in favour of moderate protection. Therefore, the men who are to be appointed on this commission are to be moderate protectionists, they are to be in sympathy with the sentiment now ruling the country. I ask my hon. friend opposite is it in accordance

with British institutions that this commission should be formed on such a basis as this? Is it in accordance with what we know of the continuity of government that partisans should be appointed in the Civil Service or on any commission? If you appoint a temporary commission the government may put on that commission any man they think will serve an object, but if you appoint a permanent commission such as this is intended to be, is it in accordance with the spirit of British institutions that you should appoint partisans, or if you wanted to put it less strongly than I do, men who would be in sympathy with the government of the day? This is absolutely repugnant to our system of constitutional government. The very nature of our institutions is based on party government, and contemplates that there should be an alternation of party in the administration. The very nature of our administration is predicated upon the fact which we know by the experience of British countries that governments are not immortal, governments are like men, born to die. Even this government is not eternal or immortal, there will come a day when it will give way to its opponents. If we appoint this commission composed of partisans, men intended to be in sympathy with the present policy of the government, what justice will it be when their opponents come into office? That is not in accordance with our principle. The principle upon which this commission must be governed is that the men who are appointed to it shall be absolutely free from any political bias.
If justice is to be done to the whole country, not only to supporters of the government but also to its opponents, you must appoint men who are not biased or partisan and who wTili give the information they collect without any colour at all so that every one may ascertain the facts as they are. They should ue men, not influenced by sympathy with the present government, but anxious to give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The very manner in which it is proposed to appoint this commission justifies our opposition to it. I object to a commission entrusted with the collection of information on all subjects mentioned in the Bill which will do it with the view of preparing a brief for the minister and not simply for the purpose of collecting information, whether that information will help the views of my hon. friends or the contrary. I think the principle of the Bill is altogether wrong and that the method to be followed under it is not that on which my hon. friend should proceed. Complaint has been made that our statistics are not as perfect as they should be. I agree in this, but I submit that any legislation to improve our statistical records should not be enacted for a 91
political object, but simply for the obtaining of information.


Robert Laird Borden: The right hon. gentleman is unduly alarmed. I am afraid he is not following out the principles he exhibited to the country during some fifteen years in which he held office. He objects to partisans being appointed on this commission. Well, nobody would select a man because he was a partisan, but on the other hand I do not suppose any one would reject any man, otherwise fit and suitable, because he had some political opinions. It would be difficult to find any one who is not affiliated with one or the other of the political parties. During the fifteen years during which my hon. friend was in power, when he appointed a great many commissions, I am not aware that ever, from first to last, he appointed a single Conservative to any one of them. Yet he informs us this afternoon that any such course is absolutely outrageous. How is it that this has occurred to him to-day for the first time and not on some previous occasion during his fifteen years in office? It is well known that in this country men who have taken very active part in political affairs are frequently appointed to positions on the bench, and we know that, with very occasional exceptions, they all, in spite of their political affiliations, administer justice as it should be administered. My right hon. friend suggests that if any one appointed on this commission should have any particular opinions regarding the trade policy of this country, that will affect his inquiry into the matters brought before him. The same objection might be urged to the trial by judge of a matter between two men, one of whom had been a strong supporter of his in politics and the other an opponent. Yet no one would venture the opinion that he was therefore not fitted to administer impartial justice between these two. I do not see the force of the right hon. gentleman's objections, nor do I think this is the proper time to consider the principle of the Bill, because we did that on the second reading and are now only concerned with its details. As my right hon. friend must understand, it would be impossible to name now the personnel of the commission. What we are endeavouring to do is to have legislation passed, and then we shall consider who are the most suitable persons to appoint. It would be reversing the usual order to decide on the personnel of the commission first and then bring in legislation for the purpose of establishing that commission and appointing them to office. The government will be responsible for appointing the best qualified persons as commissioners, should this Bill become law, and I have no doubt the selection will be one which will commend



itself to the judgment of all fair-minded people.


Mr. GUTHRIE.: My right hon. friend (Mr. Borden) has -surely a short memory with regard to the appointments made by the late government, commissioners or otherwise, during the last fifteen years. Turning around to his followers and waving his bands he said that during the last fifteen years my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the late government never appointed on these commissions any but partisans. If my right hon. friend will reflect for -a moment, he will see that the statement was very inaccurate. If he will refer back to one of the important commissions appointed in the last four or five years, the Civil Service Commission, he will find that the chairman of that commission was, prior to his appointment, a Conservative of the most pronounced type. And if he will refer to the second Civil Service Commission, consisting of one man, Mr. Justice Cassels, he will find -that Mr. Justice Cassels, who was appointed by the late government judge of the Exchequer Court, was not, in his political career, on the Liberal side -at all events. I think I might recall other commissions of which the same may be said. In the appointment of the Civil Service Commission, care was taken that no one appointed could be -considered a partisan in iany sense of the word.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Hugh Guthrie: My hon. friends laugh at that statement, but they know that Prof. Shortt was a non-partisan. I have frequently heard him speak, I have discussed party matters with him, and I can say that he was distinctly non-partisan at the time of -his -appointment. In the appointments of judges, the record of the late administration is anything but a record of partisan appointment, in Ontario, Quebec or Nova Scotia.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Name one in Manitoba.


Hugh Guthrie: Let me name one or more that I am familiar with. I recall the case of Mr. Justice Nesbitt, now Hon. Wallace Nesbitt, who retired from the Supreme Court. There was Mr. Justice Middleton, at present a judge of the High Court of Ontario. I think I am also right in saying there was the case of Judge Phippen, now connected with the Canadian Northern railway-a case in Manitoba, I believe. There was the case of Mr. Justice Townsend, appointed by the Conservative government and promoted to the chief justiceship of Nova Scotia.


Henry Robert Emmerson: And Chief Justice Barker of New Brunswick.


Robert Laird Borden: 


Hugh Guthrie: And others could be named. In regard to judicial appointments or tlh-e appointment of commissioners whose powers were judicial, the late government did not seek the line of partisanship, but appointed, -as far as was in their power, men who were non-partisan,, men of independent judgment. The question, of course, becomes important in view of the statement of the Minister of Finance (Mr. White, Leeds), himself speaking on the motion for the second reading of the Bill, that various schools of thought in -regard to the tariff existed1 in this- country. He stated openly that there were high protectionists, moderate protectionists and free traders. Surely it is all-important for the members of this committee to know from which of these -classes- he will appoint the gentlemen who are to compose this commission. If we -had some reasonable assurance that there would be one from each class, I think it would be rather satisfactory at this juncture. In the United States, in their proposed measure, they certainly recognized this, for they provided for the appointment of five, of whom three were to be Republicans-leaving two to the Democrats or whatever the other parties might be. I think we should have some assurance of the personnel before the clause is passed. Perhaps, If the clause stood ' over my hon. friend (Mr. White, Leeds) might make up his mind on the subject.


William Thomas White: My hon. friends opposite, I think, have not been earnest and sincere in their opposition to this Bill. This has not -been a real fight, but a sham fight, a pillow fight. That was quite apparent on the second reading. These gentlemen have simply been setting -up bogies and attacking them. They have been reading into the Bill what was never in the Bill, -and no one knows d-t better than fheon-selv-es. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has assumed a good deal. Where is there a word in this Bill with regard to high protection, or reasonable protection, or free trade ?-or as to partisans being appointed commissioners? There is not a word; these hon. gentlemen have simply read this in the Bill for tlhe purpose of their own arguments. As I have said, the duties of these commissioners are quasijudicial -and administrative. I want men who are capable of getting the facts, of sifting out information -and presenting it in a form that we may r-ely upon. It will -be valuable to -us, as I have said, in framing a tariff. And it ill becomes Liberals to stand in the way of light and information. The consumers of this country want information.


Hugh Guthrie: We want the facts.


William Thomas White: We want the facts, and hon. gentlemen opposite are

standing in the way of the facts when they oppose the appointment of this commission. They are standing in the way of the light. The consumers of this country complain, as some of our free trade friends complain, that an undue measure of protection is enjoyed by certain interests. How can we tell whether these interests make unduly large profits, unless we get the information? And that information is not available at the present time. How are we to get at that information otherwise than is here proposed? Hon. members opposite talk about this as subverting the constitution. I think that argument is completely destroyed by looking at the case more in detail. Suppose we proposed here to appoint a commission to investigate one particular industry, let us say the cement industry, with the idea of finding out the cost of production and the prices at which the product is sold at various points in Canada, would hon. gentlemen opposite say that this would involve a subversion of the constitution? In the Customs Tariff Act, I think, it is provided that if there is evidence that a conspiracy or combination exists for the purpose of unduly enhancing prices, the government may appoint a judge to investigate and ascertain the facts. And vhat may the government do on the report of that judge? They may reduce the customs duty in order that the public may have fair-play in the matter. What essential difference is there between this and having an inquiry with regard to one particular industry and appointing a Tariff Commission for the purpose of investigating not one, but all industries, to ascertain the cost of production and the prices of commodities throughout the country? What is there prima facie wrong in that? Is it not commendable instead of being prima facie wrong? The only thing that can make it appear wrong is that hon. gentlemen opposite have read into it their own suspicions. They have approached this proposal in a suspicious manner, instead of in an open and a fair manner. As I have said, there is not a line in this Bill that suggests high protection or reasonable protection, or free trade. My hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) made some observations with regard to a statement of mine that I was not a high protectionist, but believed in a reasonable degree of protection, and he asked me what was a reasonable degree of protection? That is not an easy thing to define, but here is what I would say to my right hon. friend: If an industry which is capable of being maintained in this country, an industry in which we have some advantages and not such great disadvantages as to make it improper that 91i
this industry should be developed at all, and if this industry is capable of furnishing work to our labouring population and of giving reasonable profit to the men who are developing it, and if, by reason of a protective tariff an undue return is obtained by the men who are developing that industry, a return above what might be deemed an adequate and fair return, then I should say that industry was too highly protected. If on the other hand, we can build up industries in this country, if we can develop our resources by a tariff which does not permit undue profits to those engaged in that development, an industry which affords work to our people and produces here goods that otherwise would be produced abroad and imported into Canada, I think we may say that the protection that would have this result would be reasonable protection. And in saying that, I believe I am expressing a view which is not substantially different from that of my predecessor in the office of Minister of Finance. Read * Hansard ' and note carefully what he said, and you will find that the party for which he was the spokesman in tariff matters was not a free trade party, or even a tariff-for-revenue-only party. I think you will find any number of utterances on the part of my predecessor in favour of a policy of reasonable protection. This was subject, of course, to our having advantages for the development of industries in this country. I think he would assume-and I would say the same and would have no hesitation in giving adherence to this view-that there may be some things that we cannot manufacture to advantage, and, in the case of such industries, it mighty be fairly argued that there should be no' protective tariff.
Now, I have said that hon. gentlemen opposite are standing in the way of light and information in opposing the creation of this Tariff Commission. And let me say to them that I believe that if they had had a Tariff Commission to supply them with the facts, there would have been no election on the 21st of September last.
I state that it was because they were not possessed of the facts that they negotiated the reciprocity agreement with the United States-simply because they were not possessed of the facts and the United States was possessed of the facts by means of a tariff commission. My hon. friends opposite were not possessed of the facts, and the result is that we are here and you are there. My right hon. friend might have been sitting here to-day, and no election would have taken place, but instead of that, he is sitting over there, and I must say that he looks pretty well in either place, because he is a distinguished looking man.


Wilfrid Laurier: Happy on either side.


William Thomas White: See that you are not on both sides. Now my hon. friend has spoken with regard, to these commissioners being mere statisticians. I must take issue with him; they are a good deal more than statisticians. He has read some of the subsections there which would indicate that statistics were to be accumulated, and I agree with him that as to certain of these subsections, statisticians might reasonably obtain information. But if he will look over them all carefully, he will find that very much higher qualifications are required in these men to disenarge their duties than the qualifications of mere statisticians. For example, the cost of production in Canada arid elsewhere-one of the most difficult things to ascertain, requires judicial qualifications, and other abilities of an unusual kind, because in the cost of production you find so many different factors and elements. In the first place, you have the cost of the raw material and the cost of laying it down. Then you have to consider how much capital is invested in that enterprise, and that may mean an investigation as to whether a company is over-capitalized or not. Then you have to find what are the fixed charges, the cost of management, and the efficiency of the management, because with poor management as distinguished from good management, your cost will be increased. You have to consider whether the capital invested was paid bona fide, that is, if it is watered, and to what extent it is "watered; in other words, judgment of a very rare kind is required for the investigation into the cost * of any commodity or product. In the same way the cost, the efficiency and the conditions of labour in Canada and elsewhere must be inquired into.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In deciding whether a ccmpany has been over-capitalized, will the minister require this commission to Teport the facts, or will he judge for himself?


William Thomas White: My hon. friend will observe that in the reports that have been made, there is to be a copy of the evidence. Let me say this-because I do r,ot desire that there should be any misconception as to the scope of this Bill-I dc not say that because the commission makes a report that it is to be absolutely conclusive. As I said the other da

 the minister himself, must keep in touch with living conditions, he must see what is going on about him, as he does to-day, he must keep in touch with business conditions; and while this Tariff Commission will supplement the information he may have, at the same time he must use his own judgment, and if he has any Mr. WHITE (Leeds).
cause to suspect or to believe that the evidence furnished with the reports of the Tariff Commission is not accurate, of course he will re-commit such questions to the commission, to be taken up again for further consideration. As I remarked on the second reading, we do not desire to be relieved from responsibility with regard to the tariff, and all the Tariff Commission does, is to enable us to obtain information on which to act. Let me say this, that of all the people in Canada who desire information to he obtained, those who call themselves free traders, and the consumers, should be the most anxious to get it. If my hon. friends think they can score on that, I believe they are very much mistaken. I believe the consuming population of Canada are greatly interests ed in the question of the tariff, they want the facts and our protectionist friends, those who enjoy or think they enjoy a reasonable protection, want the facts also; in other words, it is in the interest of all the classes in Canada without exception, I do not care what their economic opinions may be, to have reliable information.


William Erskine Knowles: The minister says that he does not desire ministerial responsibility to cease. Suppose a couple of years hence the minister should ask the House to place a duty on certain articles and some of us should object; does the minister think that he would be justified in closing the matter by simply saying that the commission had found certain facts to exist? ,


William Thomas White: I would say this, that great weight should be attached to the reports of the Tariff Commission. But I am far from saying that they should be conclusive in the sense indicated by my hon. friend. I think the report of the Tariff Commission should be available to every member of this House as well as to the minister, and then no doubt it will carry great weight. But that is far from saying that it is absolutely conclusive.


William Erskine Knowles: It would not be a justification in itself?


William Thomas White: Not an absolute justification, no, but it will have its due weight.


Mr. CARROLL.: I think this is a reason why we should know the personnel of this commission before this Act passes, because the minister argues that it is in the interest of the producers that this Tariff Commission be constituted. But it will not be in the interest of the consumers or the labouring classes if three high protectionists are placed on this commission.


William Thomas White: Where does my hon. friend find in this Bill one word to

indicate that high protectionists are to be appointed commissioners? Not a word, he is finding it in his own imagination, and no where else.


William F. Carroll: We are simply asking for information as to the personnel of this commission.


William Thomas White: I can tell my hon. friend that the question of the personnel of the commission has not yet engaged our attention. Let me ask my hon. friend, did he ever know in this case of any legislation going through this House, of the personnel of the commission being announced in advance of the passing of the Bill creating the commission?


Mr. McKENZIE.: The minister says that he will take the report of the commission. Does he mean the comments or conclusions gathered by the commission, or the evidence itself?


William Thomas White: My idea is this, that the information and reports of this commission will be departmental information, available for the government in considering tariff questions. Now that information, like all other information which is departmental, may be called for by this House, and may be laid on the table. I would be the last man to suggest that the House of Commons should be denied the information obtained by means of the expense which they have authorized. There is no intention of that kind in this Bill. My hon. friends have been simply raising spectres with regard to this Bill. The object of this Bill is to obtain information which could not be obtained in any other way. But because we propose to obtain information which hitherto has not been obtainable and cannot be obtainable otherwise, does not mean that the government seeks to be relieved from its constitutional responsibility for the tariff, and for tariff rates.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend, in his opening remarks, was kind enough to tell me that he would endeavour to meet my inquiry as to his idea of moderate protection.
I do not know that he has made the subject much clearer than it was. Perhaps it is clear to his mind. I wish I knew myself, but the difficulty is that nobody, whether in this country or any other country, has ever been able to draw the line between what is moderate protection and immoderate protection. I never knew a protectionist, not even the gentleman who stated in Toronto that he wanted the protective barrier against foreign goods to be as high as 'Hannanls gallows,' who ever pretended that he was anything but a moderate protectionist. The idea of the moderate
or immoderate protectionists with regard to protection is very much like the idea of the old squaw about whisky. Her idea was that a little too much was just enough. A little too much is just enough protection for the purpose of the manufacturer or of the man who is a moderate protectionist.
My hon. friend says that the object of this Bill is to have the facts. I agree with him that that ought to be the object of the Bill. It ought to be to get the. facts and nothing, else, and if I saw in this Bill evidence off an intention to have the facts and nothing but the facts, the truth and nothing but the truth, for my part, I would be satisfied with it. My hon. friend tells us that if we had had the facts there would have been no election on the 21st September, that we would not have been where we are now but where he is. Well, I must say, that looking at the long faces of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, there is a compensating feature to the fact that we were defeated on the 21st September. There is more joy on this side of the House than there is on the other side. I have noticed on several occasions during the present session that the faces of hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have lengthened and lengthened until they were looking very much the picture of despair. Perhaps we may see the same thing again during the present session. I do not want my hon. friend to waste any pity on this side of the House; we are quite happy where we are and where hon. gentlemen will be some time or other.
My hon. friend tells us that if we had had the facts, as they had them in the United States, we would never have committed the imprudence that we did of making an arrangement with the United States. They have the facts in the United States, and we have not. But, if I am correctly informed, in the United States they collected the facts that they have without a Tariff Commission, and simply by a statistical bureau. I understand that they want a Tariff Commission in the United States just as my hon. friend wants to have a Tariff Commission here, but they were able to collect the facts with a simple statistical bureau such as they have now. I understand that in the United States, as ini this country, the dominant party is not satisfied with having a statistical bureau which will collect the facts and present them as they are, but that they rather desire to give a colour to them in favour of their own view, which is the view of the present administration. Of course, my hon. friend tells me that there is nothing of that kind in the Bill. Who expects to find anything of that kind in the Bill? There, is such a thing as an Act and an ulterior motive to that Act not to be found within the four

corners of the Act itself. My hon. friend did not put in his Bill that the object which he had in view was to have, not the broad facts as they exist, but simply a commission to prepare for him, and for the government of which he is a member, in favour of the view upon political economy which my hon. friend and his colleagues entertain. He did not tell us that, it is true, but we had an influential member on the other side of the House telling us that that was the intention of the government.


William Thomas White: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the meaning of these words spoken by the hon. member for Montreal St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) the other day? Speaking of the personnel of the commission he said, not that they must be high protectionists, but that they must be in sympathy with the well known sentiment of the present government. Well, if these are not partisans what are they? They may not be offensive partisans. It is difficult t-o lay down the line and say what is an offensive or an inoffensive partisan. Under the present administration we find that offensive partisanship is simply to ~be a partisan. These men who are to be apipointed commissioners under this Act, must be men who are in sympathy with the sentiments of my hon. friend. That is the qualification that was laid down by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine. If I am told by my hon. friend (Mr. White) that the hon. member for Montreal is wrong, that he did not speak by authority, that he did not know what he was talking about, all I can tell my hon. friend is that until the words of the hon. member for St. Antoine have been disavowed by him, I will persist in believing that the members of the commission will be partisans and that they will be appointed with the object of supporting the views of my non. friend. My hon. friend tells us that we shall have the information. Certainly, we all agree to that, but he tells us also that we shall be the first to agree to this Bill which is to be put upon the statute-book, in order to get the information. He tells us that those who are against high duties ought to be in favour of this Bill. He tells us that there are men complaining to-day that the duties are too high, and that t-heir complaints should be investigated. Investigated by whom?

by men who are against high duties? No, by men who are in favour of high duties. That is the kind of justice that we are going to have. You are going to appoint a commission composed of men in sympathy with the present government. Men are men after all. We can all agree to this that we have our own passions, our own prejudices, and our own views. My hon. friend belongs to the legal profession, and he knows that in a court of law the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
same fact may be presented by two men, who will give an entirely different colour to it, each of them honestly and acting in good faith. My hon. friend knows that men are unconsciously biased in favour of their own proclivities. Does he mean to tell me that when the facts are investigated by men who are of his own way of thinking, who are in favour of duties-call it moderate protection, if you like-you can expect from these men a report which will be in favmr of the converse view of no duty upon the articles under consideration? They would not be men, they would not be acting in accordance with the dictates of human nature, if it were to be supposed that under such circumstances they would give such a report. What alarms us in this matter, Sir, is that, as stated by my hon. friend from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), when speaking in answer to my hon. friend on the second reading of the Bill, you are taking this Yankee device, which has not yet become law in the United States, tout is intended to produce such an effect as to promote the view of the dominating party in the United States. The same thing must obtain here if you adopt the same methods.- That is the reason why I say that the Bill of my hon. friend is not intended, according to the statement of my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine, to result in the preparation of an unbiased statement of the facts, but that it is intended to prepare a brief in every case for the administration in favour of the views which are held by my hon. friends opposite.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has stated to the House that if the purpose of the Bill were simply to provide information, he would be glad to support it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Would the right hon. gentleman suggest to the House what might be added to or substracted from the Bill that would make it such to his mind?


Wilfrid Laurier: Simply to organize a statistical bureau such as they have in the United States and such as we have, to some extent, in this country.


Arthur Meighen: The right hon. gentleman states that he would favour the Bill if it organized simply a statistical bureau such as exists in the United States. I have been at some pains to look into the legislation in the United States, to ascertain how the tariff board which exists at present, and which has existed for two years back is operated there, and I can see in it nothing more of the nature of a statistical bureau than that which is contemplated by the present Bill. The tariff board appointed by the President of the United States under the authority of the Customs

Act of 1901, is a tariff board designed for the purpose and with the powers of the Tariff Commission contemplated by this Bill, and has done work that is not of a statistical character at all, as well as work that is of a statistical character.
So that if the right hon. gentleman contemplated a board clothed with the power and having the objective of the tariff board of the United States, then he must be satisfied with this Bill as it stands, and I suggest to him that the Minister of Finance cannot devise an amendment either by addition or omission that will better provide for what the right hon. gentleman himself wants. Does the right hon. gentleman suggest that a definition of a moderate protectionist should be inserted in the Bill? The right hon. gentleman is greatly concerned this afternoon because he does not appear to know just what a moderate protectionist is. I suggest that he turn to the hon. gentleman behind him who has acknowledged to the House that he is a moderate protectionist and ask him what in the world he is. Then the hon. member for Richmond also made the same avowal to the House, and the member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) refused to state that he would eliminate protection from our tariff, and I do not think he would say that if he is a protectionist. He is anything but a moderate protectionist.


Mr. OLIVER.: I must protest against the hon. gentleman using a suggestion that was made in a previous debate to which it did not suit me at the moment to reply. But when the question comes up, if my hon. friend will bear with me, I will give him all the information.


Arthur Meighen: I am at a loss to understand how the question can be up if it is not up now.


Frank Oliver: At all events I am not up at the moment, but I shall take care to be up and to enlighten my hon. friend.


Arthur Meighen: He was up and very much up, and was enthroned in office for seven years, but then he was a protectionist just in the sense the late government was and that, I think, was moderate protection although in some cases it was immoderate, and in some cases not protection at all, just as political exigencies or necessity might dictate. The right hon. gentleman, surrounded as he is, and with the experience he has had, surely should be in a position if any man in the world is in a position, to define what moderate protection is.
The position as it appeals to me, is this. The tariff in this country must be framed on either one or another of two hypotheses. It must be framed to suit the fair exigencies of business and the people, or to suit the exigencies of politics. The
right hon. gentleman while he was leader of the government professed to adhere to to a policy of moderate protection, interweaving in some way with a tariff for revenue only, but he framed his policy, that is to say he drew the line where it would suit the exigencies of politics. I make that statement advisedly, and from having observed the policy of the right hon. gentleman, both as a' member of this House, and as a citizen of Canada. I do not think the right hon. gentleman will deny that that was the policy that guided him in the framing of his tariff. If I require further authority I read from an editorial in the Manitoba ' Free Press ', which is the organ of the right hon. gentleman in western Canada, and which strenuously conducted newspaper warmly supported him in the late contest.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend honours me when he says that the ' Free Press ' is my organ.


Arthur Meighen: I am always pleased to honour my right hon. friend when I can do so with truth. The editorial is headed ' A Permanent Tariff Board,' and contains the following sentence;
The late government was as protectionist as it thought it necessary to be to placate powerful interests and make them neutral or friendly.
Now that is the ta'lisman, according to the organ of the government itself, that regulated their protectionist policy. So that while the hon. gentleman who lately, represented western Canada, and whose views this doubtless interprets exactly, will, I hope, not disavow the authority of his organ in the west. If we are to follow that principle then the method adopted by the late government is beautifully suited to the case, authorizing a rambling band of politicians to pass over Canada and find out just what would be the political effect of a certain schedule here or there, and then fixing the schedule with a view to getting as large a percentage of votes as possible. That being the case, a tariff board certainly is an unnecessary luxury in Canada. But, if, on the contrary, we are to base our tariff on the business, commercial and industrial effects it will have, and so have the objective of the successful carrying on of Canadian industries and Canadian industrial 'life, we cannot have too much light, and no schedule in our tariff that cannot stand the light should stand without light, and on the other hand no schedule and no set of business people in Canada should be made to suffer the odium of ignorant suspicion in this country. That is the purpose of the tariff board. But hon. gentlemen want to know who the men on the board would be. There is not a responsible man on the opposite side who would

suggest that it was the duty of the government or of any one to assert now who the men would be. They say:	If we
do not know who they are, tell us their opinions. The hon. gentleman who sits behind the first minister has acknowledged that we know constitutionally no differences of party in this country and consequently it would be impossible, and not to be expected that the government would state from which party they were to come. The hon. gentleman is greatly' concerned about a statement of my hon. friend from St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames). No one in this House has more admiration for the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) than I have, and his conviction evidently is that most people in this country are, on tariff matters, in line with the government of the day. I think he has ample evidence to support his conviction because the great majority of the people in this country do believe in the policy of reasonable protection that is the policy ot this government.
The hon. member (Mr. Ames) made some remark from which the leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) draws the inference that he would debar a man if he had leanings towards free trade. For myself, if the appointee were qualified in every other way, if he came to the duties of his office with the qualifications which I think he should have, qualifications as a student and as a fearless investigator, qualified, in a word, as the minister has stated he should be qualified, then my opinion as a private member is that he should not be debarred from serving on the board. No minister has stated that any political opinion is to disqualify any man from serving on this board, if he is qualified fairly to investigate and to report, these are the qualifications insisted on by the government.
Now why should this Bill not pass?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Because the hon. member is keeping it back.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member says I am keeping it back. I feel quite confident that my hon. friend, when he comes to speak, will follow my illustrious example.


Mr. KYTE.: The Minister of Finance intimated that if there was more information the consumers of this county anight be more reconciled to the policy of reasonable protection. I think that is the key of the whole situation.


William Thomas White: Did I say that?


George William Kyte: I regret very much if I have misinterpreted any statement of the hon. minister, but he said that what was needed was more information, and that if the consumers of Canada had more information perhaps they would be more reasonable in their attitude towards protection. That is


Arthur Meighen: a paraphrase of what I understood the hon. Minister of Finance to say, that is the key of the situation. So far as one can gather from ministerial statements, this commission will be an institution for the purpose of gathering information of one kind With the object of inducing consumers to believe that they are wrong and that what is needed is more protection. It seems to me that that is a manifest deduction to be drawn from the speech of the Finance Minister. A year ago a commission was appointed for the purpose of getting information on the subject of technical education. That is a question in which different classes of the community are deeply interested. Had the leader of the late government proposed on that commission the representative of one particular class, such as the manufacturing interests, he would have been met by protests from all over the country.


William Sora Middlebro: When the Bill appointing that commission passed this House, were the names given of the men who were to be appointed?


George William Kyte: They were not then, and I do not think anybody on this side has asked the present government to name the particular persons to be appointed.


William Sora Middlebro: Did anybody ask for a guarantee, when that commission wa= appointed, that the labour and other interests would be represented on it?


George William Kyte: Whether that was asked or not is entirely beside the question. As a matter of fact all interests were represented on it. The manufacturers, the labouring men, the universities, were represented on that commission. Every interest likely to be affected by its proceedings and report was represented. Further than that I would remind my hon. friend that in the composition of that board, the Conservative party was not overlooked because in the appointment of Mr. Simipson >and Mr. Murray of Toronto, the late government named two men affiliated with the Conservative party.


John Allister Currie: I want to deny that. Mr. Simpson is an avowed Socialist.


George William Kyte: From the experience I have in this House, I am quite prepared for interruptions from the hon. gentleman and do not take any account of them. But to come back to the question, what we desire is to have some guarantee from the Minister of Finance that the consumers of this country will be represented on this commission, and that it will not be an institution devised simply for the purpose of educating people into the belief that protection is the best policy for this country. If the sympathies of the men composing the commission should be entirely in favour of protection, we have reason to oelieve that they

[DOT] 2882
will be careful to summon before them only those who would be in sympathy with a higher tariff. As 1 pointed out the other evening, there is no provision in this Bill to enable a man to come forward voluntarily and give his evidence. It is provided that witnesses shall be summoned before this board to give evidence, but I submit that there should also be a provision enabling any man, no matter what may be his views on the tariff, to come forward and state them. The omission of such a provision justifies the conclusion that this institution is simply created to lead people into the belief that protection, and protection alone, is the proper policy for the country.


John Allister Currie: Does the hon. gentleman declare himself a free trader?


George William Kyte: I do not know that whatever the hon. gentleman's views may be can have much significance, but, since he appears anxious to ascertain mine, I am in favour of such protection only as is necessary for the revenues of the country.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I must confess that I am much surprised at what I have heard from hon. gentlemen opposite. I thought that on the second reading of the Bill we had arrived at a conclusion as to what its real intention was, namely, to procure information for the government and the country in order that we might frame a. tariff measure suited to our needs. And let me say now that if there are hon. gentlemen more in need of information on that subject than any other they are to be found on that side. During the second reading of this Bill they exhibited the most extraordinary ignorance of the character of our tariff. I say that without any intention of being offensive, because they have been taught by their leader that the tariff in force is a low tariff, instead of which it is one of the highest taxation tariffs we have had during the last thirty or forty years. Go through it item after item of articles of every day consumption, and you will find the taxation on these increased enormously. Take the article of sugar, which is consumed by every family in the country, rich and poor. Now, if these hon. gentlemen, who plume themselves on being the low tariff party, were anxious to keep down taxation, why did they so enormously increase the duty on sugar? Raw sugar is the basis of the refined article, and the higher we increase the price of the raw the higher we raise the price of the refined. Hon. gentlemen opposite were not satisfied with the duty on raw sugar as they found it, but immediately on assuming office set to work to see how high they could make it. They told us that their tariff was for revenue only, and they were determined to get all
the revenue they could out of sugar. If we apply the tariff of the late government to the imports of sugar of the last year, we will find that they had increased the duty in 1911 on raw sugar alone by $344,000, which is a very considerable item for a low tariff government. It looks rather strange that they should be so extremely alarmed lest the Bill before the House should result in a higher tariff when they themselves have acted along that line by increasing duty after duty on articles of daily consumption.
Now, I say that there is no excuse for
that increased duty on sugar; and if as hon. gentlemen opposite say the Finance Minister is going to put somebody on this commission who will work along the line of increased duties, I think these hon. gentlemen should welcome it, because that has been their policy for many years. Without making special reference to what any hon. member said on the second reading of this Bill, I must say that I am amused at some of the statements made on the other side of the House on the subject of the tariff, for that subject came largely into the discussion. But let me point out a few concrete examples to show how far these hon. gentlemen are astray in their opinions of their own tariff. If these hon. gentlemen want a tariff in accordance with their ideals, and if they think that Tariff Commission will have the effect of raising the tariff, I think they should welcome this Bill instead of opposing it. But I do not think that is the intention of the Minister of Finance. He wants a commission sim*ply to give information. During the last fifteen years I have given great attention to the study of the tariff; in fact, I venture to say I have given as much attention to it as aiiy other hon. member of this House. I do not boast of it; it was my duty to do it. As a result of that study, I venture to say that, if any hon. member on that side thinks he has been supporting a lower tariff on many articles, he is sadly mistaken. And I believe that information to show how he is mistaken is what this \eommissitm will supply. I have given some instances of increased tariff in this House before, but let me call attention to a few of them now. Take the case of fire-arms. I was charged years ago with being a high protectionist by a gentleman who claims to be a free trader. But when I pointed out that his free trade principles carried him far above my idea of moderate protection in the rate of tariff duties, I think that hon. gentleman was quite surprised. When the late government came into power the duty on fire-arms was 20 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite immediately put it up to 30 per cent. That was not very like a free trade or lower tariff government..


Henry Robert Emmerson: Dangerous weapons.


David Henderson: Anyhow they thought they would put the tariff on a higher plane. Many people in this country wish to buy rifles and guns for hunting and that sort of thing, and they had to be taxed by this additional rate of duty. But the answer was that the British preference would regulate that. It would take one-third off the 30 per cent and bring it down to 20 percent, at which it had stood before. But they forgot we did not buy our firearms entirely from Great Britain, but largely from the United States. Firearms coming in from the United States or other countries pay 30 per cent duty, and only those coming from Great Britain enter at 20 per cent. I see, Mr. Chairman, you are looking at the clock, and I must be brief, otherwise six o'clock will arrive before we get through. But let us consider the clock for a minute. This is an instrument you will find in every household-abundance of them. Did the Liberal government, when it came in, leave the duty on clocks where it had been? No, they wanted ' tariff for revenue ' so they increased the duty on clocks. They said: Here is a thing that every man must have in his house, and here is a chance for us to get more money. And the same with watches. They knew that everybody in Canada desires to have a watch, so they said: We want revenue, so we will make them pay higher duty on their watches. I looked up the figures the other day to see what the increase was. The duty on watches under the much abused National Policy, had been 25 per cent. Hon. gentlemen opposite raised the duty to 30 per cent. But they said the British preference would regulate that, and bring the duty on watches a little below 20 per cent. But they forgot that Great Britain was not a watch making country. This is exactly one of the things in which our tariff commission could help. They would be able to tell us that Great Britain is not a watch making country, and thar consequently the hope of applying the British preference to the duty paid on watches will not be satisfactory. We get our watches chiefly from Switzerland, the United States and France. So, instead of paying 25 per cent on watches, as it was under the national policy, last year we paid over 28 per cent on watches from all countries, notwithstanding the British preference. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been supporting that tariff since 1897, and they are crying out to-day about the high tariff, when as a matter of fact this is the very tariff they made and supported. I might go on with item after item. Take linen goods. The duties were increased from 25 to 30 per cent. Of course, the British preference applied, but everything in this line that we Mr. HENDERSON.
get from countries outside of Great Britain came in at the higher rate of duty. Take even the grey cottons, which are made very largely in Canada. The duty was 22i per cent, but these hon. gentlemen, when in power, increased that duty to 25 per cent, of course, expecting the British preference to bring it down to 19 per cent. But the fact is that we do not get all our grey cottons from Great Britain. It is a fact known to every business man in Canada, that grey cottons made in Great Britain are not sold in Canada to any great extent. Why? because they are not so good. They are not of the same quality as the American and Canadian cottons, .and the people of this country will demand the American or Canadian goods in this line in preference to those made in Great Britain. They have to pay now 25 per cent instead of 22J per cent as it was before. But you may tell me that on the Canadian grey cottons of course there would be no increase, because they are made in Canada and do not pay duty.
Have we forgotten the theory of Sir Richard Cartwright and his friends, when they advocated so strongly, that if you place a tariff on an article of Canadian manufacture the price will just work up to the price of the imported article? That is the case, and there may be a great deal in it. Why, we are paying an increased duty price on al'l our Canadian made grey cottons. Take coloured cotton, 30 per cent under the o'ld government, raised to 35 per cent by the hon. gentlemen who are now crying high tariff, and who now dread a commission, a partisan commission that may be appointed that will increase the duty, .after having sat here ever since 1897 and supporting a high tariff. I am surprised that such is the case. But nevertheless, remembering what we heard during the second reading of the Bill, that seems to be the feeling of hon. gentlemen. After raising the duty on coloured cottons from 30 to 35 per cent, the government became alarmed, and reduced to 32i per cent, leaving it still 2i per cent higheT than under the National Policy. They thought that all our coloured cottons were coming from Great Britain, and were coming in under the reduced tariff. We do get a great many from Britain, but I tell you the best coloured cottons in every day wear by the women of this country are the coloured cottons made in Canada, no doubt about that. Take cotton prints for every day wear, the Canadian women want them and they will have them. They buy American prints, of course not high class prints, those they will buy from Britain, and the duty will be somewhat lower. That seems to me to be unfair. The preference is given to the woman who wants a high class article, but the woman who wants an article that will wear and wash, has to pay a higher
[DOT]2885

duty on it, practically. That applies to coloured cottons of every class. Take the men who wear ducks, denims and all these coarse goods that are used by the farmers, workingmen and the labourers for summer wear, they are all called upon to pay a higher duty by reason of this increase, because British goods of that class are not imported into Canada. You can go through the shops of Canada and you do not find ducks, denims, cotton tweeds and cotton-ades on their counters to -any extent, the people do not want them and consequently they are not to be found there. The result is that we have been paying during the last ten or fifteen years, duties on the articles that we do want, that the people want, a great deal higher than we did before. Why, then, all this alarm that the government is going to appoint a Tariff Commission that will be in favour of increasing the duties? Why, that is exactly along the line that hon. gentlemen have advocated and supported for the last ten or twelve years. I do not see why they should be alarmed about it. My hope is that the Tariff Commission that will be appointed will do away with a great many of these anomalies; it will have the effect of pointing out to the government the unfairness of a great many clauses in our present tariff along the line I have indicated. I am not finding fault. Hon gentlemen may say I am complaining about the British preference; nothing of the kind. But I say in many things it works against the interests of the people of this country, inasmuch as the duty on so many articles was abnormally increased before the British preference was made applicable to this country. It may be said that this whole discussion, perhaps, is a little aside of the Bill which is before us. But after hearing what hon. gentlemen opposite have said, who are so extremely alarmed that a high tariff is going to be the result of this commission, I thought that I could say something on the question. I am not alarmed that our tariff wall will be made higher; I am under the impression that the very effect of this commission will be to lower the tariff. We heard something this afternoon about some gentleman in Toronto having talked about a tariff as high as ' Haman's gallows,' and the insinuation was thrown out that that was the kind of tariff this commission was going to recommend. I hope the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition, and who made reference to that this afternoon, will not forget that the man who made that remark in Toronto was a Liberal friend of his own, not a Conservative.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


David Henderson: The Gurneys were , Liberals, there is no getting over that. It'
was Mr. Gurney who was the author of that statement, a friend of the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition.


Frank Oliver: Mr. Gurney was a Liberal, as the Minister of Finance is a Liberal.


David Henderson: Well, the Minister of Finance is a mighty good Liberal, I think; he is going to give hon. gentlemen more Liberal government than we have had for a great many years. But the late Minister of the Interior admits that Mr. Gurney was a Liberal when he made that statement.


Frank Oliver: No, no.


David Henderson: I remember well the criticisms about it and there is no getting over the fact that Mr. Gurney was a Liberal, and I am not aware that he ever changed his politics. I do not know how he voted, whether he voted for or against reciprocity, I never inquired into it. But on the question of the tariff, Mr. Gurney had been, a Liberal.


Frank Oliver: How long ago?


David Henderson: When he made this statement, and I am not aware that he changed his politics since.


Mr. BUCHANAN.: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has stated that Mr. Gurney was a Liberal when he made that statement. Is it not correct that Mr. Gurney left the Liberal party in 1878 when the Conservative party introduced the policy of protection, and he has always been a Conservative from that time to the present?


David Henderson: I have lived near Toronto ever since 1878, and I never so understood it, and I believe the people of Toronto do not so understand it. I do not think Mr. Gurney is a Conservative today; if he is, I do not think his conversion has been thorough. Now strong objection was taken to something said I think, by the hon. member for St Antoine Montreal (Mr. Ames), and the inference was that he was recommending that partisans be appointed on this commission. Now what is a partisan?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear; ask the Postmaster General.


David Henderson: Now I will ask the right hon. leader of the < ppos't ir fact I do not need to ask him, because I remember in this House when the right hon. gentleman, who was then leading the government, in discussing a question similar to this, said: Why, we are all partisans; he said that he himself was a partisan, and I do not think he has changed his mind. Has the right hon. gentleman forgotten that?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


David Henderson: He remembers that, he is a partisan, and we are all partisans. That does not apply only to the members of this House.


Wilfrid Laurier: I am disqualified from sitting on this commission.


David Henderson: I think the hon. gentleman could hardly take that small exception. I understood the remarks of the right hon. gentleman at that time to apply to every man in the country. Who is the party man?


An hon. MEMBER: The Minister of Justice.


David Henderson: Yes, the Minister of Justice was, even judges on the bench, because it is very difficult to get rid of political feelings, but where are you going to find men to put on a commission of this kind if you do not take partisans?


An hon. MEMBER.: They would be no use.


David Henderson: They would be no use because they would be men who had no opinions of their own. I do not wish to obtrude beyond the hour of six o'clock and I shall be very happy to give way to the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte).


George William Kyte: I do not object to partisans being appointed to the commission, but I object to partisans from one party alone being selected.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess,
Committee resumed at 8 o'clock.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) has developed into the humoristic apologist for the low tariff ideas which prevail so markedly and so suddenly amongst those who sit on the government benches! In view of what the Minister of Finance has said with respect to the light that is to be thrown on the whole question of the tariff by this commission, and in view of the attitude taken by the hon. the member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) it is, I believe, an opportune moment to have light thrown on the course that is likely to be followed by the commissioners when appointed. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Ames) claimed that in view of the recognized policy of the present government, favouring a high protective tariff in Canada-


Arthur Meighen: He did not say that.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Well, I do not wish to misquote what the hon. member (Mr. Mr. HENDERSON.
Ames) said, but I gathered from his remarks that there are three sqhools of economic thought in Canada, the free trade cult, the tariff-for-revenue cult, and those who advocate the protective theory, whether you call it high, low or moderate. The hon. member (Mr. Ames) took it for granted that in view of the attitude this government had taken for many years on their fiscal policy, the selection of members of the board would be from among those who favoured protection. The hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) was pleased to give utterance to some very witty remarks with respect to the attitude taken by members on this side, and these remarks read in contrast with some utterances of Sir Charles Tupper, leader of the opposition in 1896 and 1897, are undoubtedly humorous. When we recall the jeremiads and lamentations of Sir Charles Tupuer as respects the havoc that would be created in Canada by reason of the Fielding tariff in contrast with the prosperity of Canada under the so-called National Policy, the humour of the remarks of my hon friend will be quite apparent.


David Henderson: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to say a word? He can recall, as I can, that the speech of Sir Charles Tupper to which he refers had reference to the first tariff brought down by Mr. Fielding ar.d not to the second tariff of the same year, which was a very different tariff.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Both tariffs were practically on the same lines, the difference being that the latter one provided for a greater reduction of duties.


David Henderson: Oh, no.


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), viewed the question from the exigencies of politics, but the exigencies of politics are one thing and the exigencies of the country are another. After all, it is not what tariffs have been in the past or what practice has been followed that we are interested in, so much as the course that is likely to be pursued under this new departure with respect to tariff creation. The Minister of Finance says that we on this side have created spectres and that we are fighting these spectres, but it seems to me that if spectres there be, they have been created by the utterances of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames), and of other supporters of the government. I asked a question of the Minister of Finance to-day about a rumour which was given wide currency in the eastern press which supports the government, and that rumour was to the effect that a member of this House, who represents a New Brunswick constituency, a lawyer by

profession-indeed I might name him, I refer to the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket)-is to be appointed one of these commissioners. Now, when the resolution with reference to this Tariff Commission was first introduced by the Minister of Finance, he told us that he had in his mind ideals with respect to the experts-he used the word experts-who were to constitute this tariff board, and I gathered,from his remarks that we were to have an effort on the part of the government to create a scientific tariff board, and that qualified experts would be appointed with the view of recognizing all the interests of the country. I regret that the Minister of Finance failed to take the House into his confidence this afternoon, and to give his ideal as to the personnel of this board. The hon. gentleman has been charged with adopting a Yankee device in promoting this legislation, and it may be interesting to know what course has been adopted by the Congress of the United States, with re-stpeet to this same matter. In the very elaborate Payne-Aldrich Tariff Bill of 1909, there was nothing especially creating a Tariff Commission, but it had it it a very inrocent clause in these words:
To secure information to assist the president in the discharge of the duties imposed upon him by this section, (relating to the application of the maximum and minimum rates) and the officers of the government in the .application of the customs laws, the president is hereby authorized to employ such persons as may be required.
That clause in no sense created a Tariff Commission, but in pursuance of it appropriations were made to pay the salaries and expenses of the persons who might be appointed, and last autumn we are informed that these all told, amounted to over one hundred officials.
At first it was to be a body composed of three members. They had a staff of officials, experts and agents which Congress provided for them. It is interesting to know the character of the board constituted by President Taft, because he acted upon the authority of the Payne-Aldrich Bill. As chairman of the board he appointed Henry Crosby Emery, a Republican. He was formerly professor of economics at Yale University. He appointed as the second member of the board, James Burton Reynolds, who was a newspaper correspondent and editorial writer, a man in a quasi public position, .a strong Republican, connected with party management in one of the states. Then he appointed Mr. Alvin Howard Saunders, a prominent Republican in Illinois, owner and manager of the ' Breeders' Gazette,' a stock review in the central states, a man interested in stock raising. I may add that Mr. Reynolds was the assistant secretary of the treasury for four years in one of the Cabinets, where he had charge of customs affairs. He had also been chairman of the Parliamentary Reciprocity Tariff League. It was alleged that this was a partisan board, and it was the object of considerable criticism on that account. The President, in order to remove any ground for criticism, appointed two additional members to the board, because the Bill, under which he organized the board, did not fix any limitations as to the number. He appointed Mr. William M. Howard, a lawyer by profession, and a Democrat. He had, I think, held some public position which gave him particular knowledge with respect to tariff matters. The fifth member of the board was Thomas Walker Payne, a Democrat, a man of great ability and high standing, who had been formerly professor of economics at the University of California. Previous to that he was a teacher of economics in the University of Virginia, and at a later date, I think he was .connected with the University of Texas in a like capacity. There was a board consisting of three Republicans and two Democrats. Two of them were professors, one was a newspaperman, and two others were publicists, of whom one was a lawyer. Those gentlemen were ^supposed to be well qualified to aid as experts the government and President with respect to tariff matters. But this board did not even then come up to the ideal of those who had advocated the constitution of a nonpartisan board, and there has been a good deal of criticism of it, both on that ground and in respect to its power. Up to the present time it has aided the government by and through its staff in gaining information. It is true that in procuring this information they relied more upon their experts tind officials, and practically it would be on the same footing as if the department of my hon. friend were to create a staff of experts to procure for him the information which this board procured for the President of the United States through their experts and agents. Since then, Congress has made two efforts to create a Tariff Commission apart from this Tariff Board. One Bill was introduced by the Republicans, .and another by Democrats, but neither Bill has made much progress up to this time. Now it will be admitted that the people of the United States were seeking some such body as I have described. The object of the board was undoubtedly to 'eliminate special privileges which were supposed to be favoured by the tariff. The object in view, as stated by the President and understood by the people, was to secure information which would justify the elimination from the tariff of all special privileges. Now, they have not yet accomplished that object.

There is a suspicion that the object of a Tariff Board such as is eonstitued by this Act is not to eliminate any special privileges, but to create special privileges iu favour of this or that particular class. In view of this suspicion, whether it is well-founded or not, we should have information from the minister if not with respect to the actual personnel of the commission, at least as to the class of men who are to be appointed. If the appointees are to be politicians, men who have been closely identified with the tariff policy of the party now dominant in this country, then this Bill merits very severe criticism at the hands of the members of this House and I am sure it will be severely criticised if not condemned by the people of Canada. A witty writer in speaking of the Tariff Board of the United States compared them to setting hens, and asked: What will the Tariff Board hatch? The minister, in saying that we have no right to ask at this stage for the information for which we have asked should bear in mini that what will be hatched will depend very materially on the character of the eggs which are to be placed under this board. If they be high tariff eggs, and if the commission is appointed to seek out devices whereby due privileges can be given to special classes, the proposal would be strongly condemned by the people of Canada. If a man is particularly interested in one class of industry he is likely to favour that class as a member of the board. I hold that the manufacturing interests are not alone interested in the tariff, that the great consuming body in Canada are entitled to have representation on that board and I think the minister would be doing himself great justice if he would candidly say to the consuming classes of Canada that it is his purpose to see that their interests shall be represented - on this Tariff Commission when he makes a selection of the members of that board.


Arthur Meighen: Would the bon. gentleman then support the measure?


Henry Robert Emmerson: My hon. friend cannot answer my question by asking another one. The responsibility with respect to this Bill does not rest on me. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has placed upon himself the responsibility of creating the board in the interests of the whole of Canada. If a board should be created representing all interests in Canada then the fears and alarm felt by the consuming class throughout Canada

Mr. CURRIE Would the hon. gentleman tell us who are the consuming classes apart from the producers in this country?


Henry Robert Emmerson: 


Henry Robert Emmerson: 
Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar).: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of some tribunal investigating these conditions?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I am not framing a Bill, I am not inviting my hon. friend to consider any Bill that I am proposing, I am discussing this Bill and I say it does not go far enough. If the hon. gentleman wants to know my views on economics, I may tell him that I am a free trader in every sense of the word.


An hon. MEMBER.: Since when?


Henry Robert Emmerson: I have been a free trader for a long time, but I recognize that it was impossible to make a sudden change to free trade. The day will come, however, when that policy will prevail in Canada.


John Allister Currie: Never.


Henry Robert Emmerson: The silent member has spoken. We are tola by that silent modest retiring gentleman, the member from Simcoe, that we are never to have anything nearly approaching free trade. I suppose that settles the question. But after all we are dealing with this Bill as to its possibilities and the fruits it may bear in the future, it is not a matter of material moment whether this one or the other favours free trade or a tariff for revenue only or protection pure and simple. But it is a matter of supreme importance to the people whether, in constituting this commission, we are creating an agency that will act in the interests of the manufacturers, and erect greater barriers in favour of the privileged classes against the welfare of the people. If there is anything in this Bill tending in that direction, it should be eliminated.
There should be every opportunity given to discuss this Bill clause by clause, minutely, and, if possible, to remedy it. I assume that it makes no difference what my opinion in respect to the Bill is.


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: I say ' hear, hear ' to that, because I know that my hon. friend proposes to put it through and he has a ready and willing sutpporter in the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Currie) and other members who are quite willing to nod just as he beckons. I take it for granted that this Bill is going through whether we are in favour of it or not. But it is of great importance as to whether the people of this country will favour a measure of this kind which will have, even if not intended, the result of affecting the interests of the consumer. The farming and consuming classes , are compelled to buy in the dearest mar-

ket, and in whose interest? In the interest of the manufacturer and only recently, on the 21st September, we denied to the producers the privilege of selling in the best and the widest market. So, they are clipped at both ends. We have given them a hobble skirt. We have hobbled them on all sides and now all through the country they are hobbling along by reason of the attitude of this government and the party which supports it. If this measure is to go through, I want this hobbling removed and as hobble skirts are not in favour in the fashionable world


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Yes, and as they are not in favour in the fashionable world, so is our hobble skirted policy with respect to the tariff not in favour among the consuming classes of Canada and the sooner the government realize that, it will be very much better for them and, regardless of the benefits which might accrue to them, it will be very much better indeed for the .people of Canada.


Mr. BLAIN.: 
Mr. TURRIFF.: That is right.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend agrees with that old policy? [DOT]


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes.


Richard Blain: I am sure that a very large majority of the people of Canada differ from my hon. friend on that point.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is not a large one.


Richard Blain: And I would say to my hon. friend and the Liberal opposition, that whatever impression they were able to make on the fanners of Canada in the years gone by, they. will not be able to make any now. The farmers have reuliz-Mr. EMMERSON.
ed that there is no class of people in Canada who have benefited to a greater extent by the National Policy, if you might call it that, than the farmers themselves. They have built up in Canada, under the sc-called National Policy, put upon the statute-books by the Liberal-Conservative party and continued in the main by hon. gentlemen opposite when they were in office-a splendid home market.


Henry Robert Emmerson: It must have been very sick for about eighteen years.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend has argued it from that standpoint, but I am arguing it now from the standpoint of the Bill before the House. The farmers pronounced on the 21st September upon that question. The policy of the late government, when introduced, was a bid for the farmers' vote. They threw out the policy of partial reciprocity between Canada and the United States and it made a distinct issue in the last election that ended on the 21st September, with what result? With the result that the farmers all over Canada, almost in every part, turned to the Liberal-Conservative party >and said: We will give you our support, and they did it on the 21st September last.


Wilfrid Laurier: They are sorry for it now.


Richard Blain: I may say to my right hon. friend (.Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that his Minister of Militia came up from the battle on the 21st September and, when interviewed in the city of Montreal and asked the question : How do you account for the defeat, said:	In my county the farmers went
against me.


Wilfrid Laurier: They are sorry for it now.	.


Richard Blain: The only sorrow I see in Canada anywhere is on the other side of the House.


John Gillanders Turriff: No, no.


Richard Blain: My hon. friends have not and cannot discuss any question since this House assembled ,a few months ago without introducing the reciprocity proposition in some part of the debate, showing that whatever else may have been on their minds there is this important question upon their minds which was settled on the 21st September.


Henry Robert Emmerson: You would like to have it forgotten.


Richard Blain: I am a frank protectionist. I am not ashamed of that position, and the farmers who sent me here are protectionists too.


Wilfrid Laurier: Moderate or immoderate?


Richard Blain: I am for moderate protection, of course. We have never had a man in this House who was a protectionist to say that lie was anything else than a moderate protectionist. I was looking over the tariff the other day that was in force when the Liberal-Conservative party were in office before, and I made some comparisons between that old tariff and the boasted Fielding tariff of 1907. Go over item after item and you will find that in many cases items that lion, gentlemen condemned for so many years while they were in opposition and condemn now are exactly the same as in the Fielding tariff that they boasted so much of. Take, for instance, the article of apples; 40 cents a barrel was the duty put on long years ago. That was condemned by hon. gentlemen opposite. They said: Of course, protection cannot protect the farmer; but when they came into office and brought down the boasted Fielding tariff the same old duty of 40 cents a barrel was placed on apples. They condemned it when they found it had been placed upon the statute-book by the Liberal-Conservative party and applauded it when they left it as it was in the measure of the Liberal government. This question of establishing a Tariff Commission was introduced into Canada only a few months ago, but in reality it had been referred to in this country and in the House for many years.
When it was mentioned, some months ago, before the House assembled the newspapers took it up. The newspapers on either side of politics understood what was meant, and nowhere did they take from it what hon members on the other side take from it, that it is a Bill designed to take away legislative powers from the government of the day. In proof of this, let me cite an editorial from the Toronto ' Globe ', a newspaper that would not be too friendly to this government. On January 6 last, the Toronto ' Globe ' said, referring to the Tariff Bill:
The Canadian Commission will have no executive functions, and will in no way usurp the right of parliament to regulate 'imposed duties. It will report to the government findings of fact and evidence upon which the same are predicated, and these will .be laid before parliament in justification of such fiscal changes as may from time to time be proposed by the government.
So the ' Globe * understood it very well, for it points out the very substance of the Bill the Finance Minister has introduced. It does not for a moment suggest that this Bill will take away any functions of the government or of this parliament. It is understood that the functions of the Tariff Commission will be to lay before parliament for the use of every member, and I suppose particularly for the use of the 92
Cabinet ministers now in office, such important facts as are necessary for an understanding of any proposals to alter the tariff. Surely, that is something that commends itself to every man. Surely it will commend itself to that class of people who suggest that the manufacturers of this country are too highly protected. To hear hon. gentlemen opposite when mention is made of manufacturers, one would think that the manufacturers were the enemies of this country instead of its friends. I do_ not think it becomes any member of this House to cast reflections on the manufacturing class whose members are to be found in both parties and who paid last year no less than $250,000,000 in gold in wages to the people of Canada. They do not require any defence on my part; they are well able to take care of themselves. Imagine the manufacturers of Canada, who have their money invested, who watch their business closely, and enterprisingly seek a market for their products, coming to the Finance Minister and suggesting to him to put on the statute-book a protective policy, as hon. members opposite would _ call it, diametrically opposed to every interest of the farming class in Canada. The farmers are the main customers of the manufacturers.
Without the home market afforded by the farmers, the manufacturers of Canada could not succeed. I cannot see how any man on either side can suggest-I doubt that any man really would suggest-that the manufacturers would come to the doors of parliament demanding such increases of duties as hon. members on the other side speak of to kill off the farming industry of this country. I believe that the farmers are interested in the tariff and that the manufacturers are equally interested. I believe that hon.. members on the other side are in favour of tariffs-they proved themselves so by keeping the National Policy on the statute-book. It was a debatable question in this House what changes they would make on coming into power in order to keep the pledges that they had given to the people years before. They failed to keep those pledges. And I do not think the people of this country will take them at their word any more. For my part, I am thinking the Bill should commend itself to this House, and I am sure it will commend itself to the people. If there is a manufacturing establishment now that has the benefit of protection higher. than it should have, the duty of the Tariff Commission will be to gather such information in respect of that establishment and manufacture, and lay it before parliament and the people so that the case may be understood. That is all my hon friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. White, Leeds) is asking. And I think



it will be time enough for hon. members on the other side to condemn the Tariff Board when it has been in operation and has made some mistake. It is all very well for hon. members opposite to declare that they are seeking information. The leader of the opposition declared in this discussion that he was anxious for facts. He was crying for information because my right hon. friend said that when we were discussing the (reciprocity proposition ta few months ago there was seme suggestion that we of this country did not have sufficient information, that we suffered in that respect in comparison with the legislature on the other iside of the line which had complete information. I think my hon. friend is correct in that we did complain of lack of information. Some hon. members suggest now that they want information, but that information could be had in some other way. In what other way? By adding to the staff of the Finance Department. Would not that cost money? The only difference is as to whether these new officers should be called a Tariff Commission or whether they should be called officers of the Finance Department to gather these statistics and lay them all on the table. That is a small matter, so small that I do not think the hon. members opposite will interest the people of Canada in their criticisms. Looking over the Bill, its simplicity appeals to me. This commission is to investigate
(a)	The price and cost of raw materials in Canada and elsewhere, and the cost of transportation thereof from the place of production to the place of use or consumption.
That has always been a subject of discussion when tariffs are before the House:
(b)	The cost of production in Canada and elsewhere ;
(c)	the cost of transportation from the place of production to the place of use or consumption, whether in Canada or elsewhere;
(d)	the cost, efficiency and conditions of labour in Canada and elsewhere;
(e)	the prices -received by producers, manufacturers, wholesale dealers, retailers and other distributors in Canada and elsewhere;
(f)	all conditions and factors which affect or enter into the cost of production and the price to the consumers in Canada.
Hon. gentlemen opposite say there is nothing in the Bill relating to consumers. Surely this is a reference direct enough. And why should not the Finance Minister be as much interested in the consumer as hon. gentlemen on the other side? The Minister of Finance and his colleagues will -have to report in a few years to the people of Canada. I should think that the Minister of Finance would be as much interested in the consumer as any hon. gentleman on the other side who has no Mr. BLAIN
particular governmental responsibility. Therefore, I think, it is rather narrow criticism, if I may put it that way, fer gentlemen on the other side to suggest that this Bill has nothing in it but suggestions for increasing tariffs, that there is no thought in it from the consumer's standpoint, and is merely bolstering up the manufacturing interest. I do not so read it, and no one can fairly read into the Bill any such interpretation. And the Toronto ' Globe,' which I have quoted, understands fully the purpose of this proposal of the government for a National Tariff Commission to lay before the people ail the facts, so that proposals in changes in the tariff may be dealt with on the basis of those facts.
If, for example, on looking over the tariff, it is found that one manufactured article has more protection than it should have, then the machinery of the Tariff Commission is called into operation and the commission considers the price of the raw-material, the transportation cost, the cost of labour, and it goes into a close examination of everything that enters into the cost of manufacturing that article, and that information is laid upon the table of the House.	*


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend says no, but the fact is that all information will be laid upon the table of the House except such information as may be of a private nature, and which would allow one business man to take advantage of his competitor. I do not suppose my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) would argue that such information should be made public.


John Gillanders Turriff: There is not one word in the Bill that compels them to lay any information on the table of the House. The information is to be supplied only to the Minister of Finance, as I understand it.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman think that the Minister of Finance is going to change the tariff without consulting his colleagues and without submitting it for the approval of parliament?


John Gillanders Turriff: No.


Richard Blain: Then, who is the information for?


John Gillanders Turriff: The whole trend of the Bill is that that information should be given to the Minister of Finance, and he and the government can use their judgment as to whether they will submit that information to parliament or not.


Richard Blain: I have sat in this House ifor many years, and I have heard the late Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding, give

reasons why certain changes should take place in the tariff, but to hear these hon. gentlemen opposite talk now, you would suppose that the present Minister of Finance was intending to appropriate this information for himself and in the interests of the manufacturers.


Frank Oliver: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend (Mr. Oliver) says 'hear, hear,' and he is the gentleman who, in years gone by, has advanced free trade and low tariff propositions in this House and out of it, but who experienced a change of mind, and for fifteen years supported a protectionist government and helped to keep them in office. Perhaps the hon. member for Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) has experienced another conversion. My understanding is that the Tariff Commission wil'i gather all the necessary information, and that when the proper time comes the Minister of Finance will give to the House the reasons why such a rate should be raised or lowered, as the case may be, and the only class of information that will not come up for public discussion, is that information which may be obtained from one manufacturer or one farmer and which, if made public, might injure the business of another manufacturer or another farmer. The whole burden of the opposition of hon. gentlemen opposite to this Bill has been-notwithstanding that the explanation given by the Minister of Finance has adequately answered that objection-that this Bill is going to take away from parliament the power to legislate on tariffs, and give it to the Tariff Commission.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not a word.


Richard Blain: The hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) was frank enough to compliment the Minister of Finance upon the clear statement of facts he gave to the House when he introduced the Bill.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did not say a word about the other thing.


Richard Blain: May I ask the hon. gentleman (Air. Nesbitt) who is interrupting me, whether he is a free trader or a protectionist.
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Answer.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I told my hon. friend the other day that I was for a reasonable tariff.


Richard Blain: Oh, yes.
Some hon. AIEAIBERS. Explain.


Richard Blain: Well, here is the long list of articles mentioned in the tariff, and will my hon. friend point to any single item which during fifteen years he ever ventured to put his finger on and say: The
rate is too high. It is, therefore, fair to conclude, that the tariff, as it is now, is a moderate tariff.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Yes.


Richard Blain: Then, the hon. gentleman is perfectly satisfied with it, and no doubt there are some people in the country who differ from him on that point. There are many people in this country who are protectionists because of the existing conditions, and because that to the south of us we have a very highly protected country. I suppose that everybody, other conditions being equal, would believe in the principle of free trade.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Richard Blain: Well, the right hon. gentleman advocated free trade on the people of 'Canada for many years. When he was in opposition before he stood on public platforms, and he told the people if they put him into power he would give free trade as they have it in England. He went from one end of Canada to the other telling the people the same thing, telling them he was not in favour of tariffs, that tariffs had made the manufacturer rich and bled the farmer


John Gillanders Turriff: White.


Richard Blain: Yes, bled the farmers white, and the people of Canada took the right hon. gentleman's word and they put him in power, but he did not give them free trade. The right hon. gentleman is trying that on the people again, but I can assure him that they will trust him no more. The right hon. gentleman has prided himself as a peacemaker, and I do not wish to detract from any credit which is due to him in that respect. He has been a very prominent man in Canada for many years, and he is entitled to credit for anything he has done in the interests of the country. But, the right hon. gentleman cannot claim that he is now assuming the attitude of a peacemaker, because his speech of this afternoon was an evident attempt to inflame the manufacturer against the farmer and the farmer against the manufacturer in this country. Judging from the discussion in this House of last Wednesday, and of this afternoon, thte members of the opposition seem to desire, notwithstanding the verdict of the 21st of September, to make a further effort to take Canada out of the ranks of protectionist countries. AVell, I do not think the right hon. gentleman and his supporters will have very much success in that line. We, on this side of the House, are reasonable protectionists, and we are willing and ready to say so in this House or out of it, but hon. gentlemen opposite who during fifteeen years of office were protectionists, are afraid or ashamed to say so. One of
mm

them is in favour of protection on coal, another in favour of protection on iron, another, when he was sitting on the government benches moved for an increased duty on pork, and so on down along the line.
There is the hon. member for South Wellington, a protectionist of course, who is credited with saying that he could change as quick as any other party in *Canada.


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know whether it is necessary for me to deny that.


Richard Blain: To me it is necessary.


Hugh Guthrie: I do deny it.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend say he is not a protectionist?


Hugh Guthrie: I stated on Wednesday *what my position is, I believe in a tariff lor revenue * with incidental protection, of [DOT]course.


Richard Blain: Here is an item in the tariff with a duty of 30 per cent. Would my hon. friend state whether a duty of 30 per cent is for revenue or a protective tariff.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Tell us the item, perhaps it is revenue.


Richard Blain: Here is 10 per cent a bushel on oats, is that protective or revenue only?


Wilfrid Laurier: What is your own view?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As the hon. gentleman is making the speech I would like to know his view.


Richard Blain: Forty cents a barrel on apples. The Liberal-Conservative party put that on, and my right hon. friend and his supporters retained it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My hon. inend knows that I voted to take that off.


Richard Blain: When?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: On the 21st September.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend voted to take it off, and I would point out that the people of Canada differed with my hon. friend on that point. -


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My constituency did not.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend had rather a close call.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Not very close when they trebled my former majority.


Richard Blain: If I wished to do so I could 4ell the reason.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Let us hear it.


Richard Blain: It had nothing to do with reciprocity. My hon. friend sits for a Mr. BLAIN.
county that used to give 1,500 Reform majority. What is the matter with it now?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I polled more votes on the 21st September than ever were polled when they gave 1,500 majority.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend comes from a province that left him and his leader only 13 members out of 86. There was some little difference of opinion in that province as to whether they wanted those duties taken off or not.
I am heartily in accord with the. Bill. I want to compliment the Finance Minister upon his frankness when presenting it to the House. He told the House what the duties of the commision would be, and how far their findings would go in the settlement, of the tariff. He said the duties of the commission would be simply to gather information for the use of the government and people of Canada, and that the government and the party would be responsible for whatever tariff changes were made, if any were made after that information was brought before the House. I am willing to trust the government, I have faith in the government as the peo'-ple of Canada have. I am not going to say that this Tariff Commission will be a bad cne before it has had an opportunity of giving its views to the people of Canada. I am going to wait, as my hon. friend has often twitted us on this side to wait, until the Tariff Commision is appointed, I am going to wait until I have an opportunity of looking into the work they have done, and if I find as a supporter of the government, that they are not giving an equivalent for their cost and for their position, then I will be one of the first to condemn the commision. There is a demand for it in this country, when there is such a diversity of opinion as to whether the tariff is too low or too high. I am going to join with my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance and his government, in giving to the people of Canada an opportunity to have an independent tribunal to furnish this House and this country with such information so that the government of the day can make certain changes, if changes are necessary, either up or dcwn. It may be down, it may be up, but this information will be for the use of the government in determining that, and I am heartily in accord with the Bill and will give it my support.


Mr. NEELY.: This is a very important section, because we all know that no matter what may be the object of this Bill, or the purpose in creating this commission, a very great deal will depend on the personnel of the board. Early in the session, I put some questions on the order paper, relative to the personnel of this

proposed commission, and as to' what walks of life they would be selected from. The information I received at that time, was very indefinite, so indefinite as not to be information at all. I do not know that hon. gentlemen opposite have any right to criticise or find fault with those on this side of the House, who ask for information as to the character of the personnel of this commission. That appears to me to be a very vital point. It was pointed out in the debate on the second reading of the Bill that there had never been any demand in Canada for the creation of a board such as this, except the demand made by the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. We have never heard of any body of farmers or agriculturists, of any labour unions, of any other labour interests in this country calling for the creation of a tariff board with this single exception of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
There is fear in the hearts of a great number of people in Canada over the prospect created by this Bill. That is the fear, the well-founded fear, that the government are projecting an important departure in our fiscal policy in the interests of the manufacturers. When has there been any demand from any section of the people except the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, for this measure? That being the case, we are justified in wanting to know from the minister what class of men he proposes to appoint on this commission. If they are to be partisan politicians, men who believe in a high protective duty, we all know what we may expect from the appointment of such a board. We have no definite knowledge as to who would constitute the board, but judging by the influence which puts this government into power, we can draw a very fair inference. There are more people interested in the tariff question than the manufacturers. The great consuming classes are still more interested, because 'it is they who pay the larger share of the duties, and in their interest we would like to know whether they are going to be represented on the personnel of this commission. We on this side have been accused by hon. gentlemen opposite of being sometimes free traders, and sometimes protectionists. Well, so far as my information goes, the Liberal party in this country is a unit on the tariff question, but, what about hon. gentlemen opposite? Take my hon. friends in the province of Manitoba, one of the things they found fault with in connection with the late reciprocity agreement was that it did not sufficiently reduce the duty on agricultural implements. They are low tariff men. Take our friends from the province of Quebec, if news*paper statements are correct, many of them secured their election, not on the ground of sympathy with the
Conservative party in its fiscal policy, but on the ground of being in sympathy with the Liberal Iparty on its fiscal policy, but against it on the question of the navy.


Mr. PELLETIER.: That is news to me, I never heard that before.


David Bradley Neely: I would like to know from the Postmaster General if his followers in the province of Quebec did not take up a position in favour of reciprocity.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: That is news to me. On election day, in the city of Quebec, when we had the results of the election from all over Canada, I said to the large crowd which was listening to us that we were glad Canada had written this glorious page in its history and had shown it was in favour of Canada for the Canadians-and of British connection.


Wilfrid Laurier: 1 am iprepar-ed to say that some of the Conservative candidates were in favour of reciprocity, but against the navy.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: 1 know of none.


Wilfrid Laurier: I know of several.	.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I had something to do with the elections and ought to know.


David Bradley Neely: Many things are said after the elections which are not said preceding and during them. I may tell my hon. friend that possibly bis friends in that province of Quebec, may liave something to tell him later on, about another question than the one before us, and which was instrumental in bringing him and his supporters to this House.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What was that?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Tell us now.


David Bradley Neely: Let my hon. friends have a little patience, they will be told about it in due time. The question of the personnel of this commission is a very important one. We know at whose demand-and desire this commission is being appointed by this government.


An hon. MEMBER.: At whose?


David Bradley Neely: At the request of the* Canadian Manufacturers' Association.
An lion. MEMBER. Give us some evidence ot that.


David Bradley Neely: I would like to know of any other representative body in Canada who ever asked for it?
An lion. MEMBER. Did they?


David Bradley Neely: They passed resolutions calling for a Tariff Commission at their-annuai meetings.


Arthur Meighen: Not of this kind.


David Bradley Neely: Of course the Canadian Manufacturers' Association did not actually draft this Bill, but they have taken a position year after year in favour of appointing a permanent Tariff Board, and we know perfectly well that the manufacturers of Canada were largely responsible, by their assistance, for bringing this government into power. What is the situation that is going to be brought about in matters political by the creation of this board, if it is to be constituted from active partisans? We know that in certain provinces of Canada there are liquor interests which have to go to the governments of those provinces to secure licenses and which consequently have to stand in with the license boards appointed by those governments. Well, we are asked to appoint a Board of Commissioners who will have it in their power, if they should be partisan, to do great service to the present government. Is it not true, that, if they should be partisan, they could say to these manufacturers: if you are not good, if you do not give an active support to the Liberal Conservative party, we will fix you when the time comes for us to recommend what tariff rates should be imposed on the goods that ccme into competition with yours?
So, I say, it appears to me that this question is not the idle question hon. gentlemen opposite would have us believe, this question raised by hon. members on this side as to what information the Minister of Finance and the leader of the government have in their possession with reference to the class of men they propose to appoint on this commission. In a discussion on this particular question, I do not wish to enter upon many of the matters which were brought up by the hon. members for Hal-ton (Mr. Henderson) and Peel (Mr. Blain). They, in fact, discussed the whole tariff situation and the fiscal policies of different parties. I do not propose to do that. But, perhaps, I may be permitted a word with reference to what was stated by the hon. member for Halton. Before he concluded his remarks that hon. gentleman expressed the pious hope-it was a pious hope, and I have no doubt that the hon. gentleman was sincere in it-that if this Tariff Commission got working, we should find that the result of their operations would be to lower tariffs rather than to increase them. Though he expressed a hope on that point, my hon. fifiend did not express very much conviction. I should be glad to entertain the hope, even without the conviction, but I am very sorry that even that hope is denied me. Let me tell the hon. member (Mr. Henderson) also that, ne did not deceive the House or the country when he picked out from the tariff list a few items on which the late government had increas-Mr. MEIGHEN.
ed duties to some extent, as intimatling to the House and to the country that the government had actually increased the duties. The items so carefully selected by the hon. gentleman were, in the main, not items of production in this country but of manufacture outside.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Sugar.


David Bradley Neely: An hon. member says ' sugar.' That is produced to some small extent in Canada, but not to an extent worthy of consideration. By carrying his argument to tits logical conclusion, my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) could prove equally well that there is no such place as free trade England, for while England is a free trade country, she does put taxes on goods brought in from other countries not produced within her own borders. On the items mentioned by the hon. gentleman, and basing the tariff on revenue, the late government might well have been justified in placing considerable duties upon them. But, having made such a careful study of the tariff as he told us he has done, the hon. gentleman should not have left out of consideration the very important statement given to the House, I think on the 4th April last, by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster, Toronto), in the form of a table of figures demonstrating that taxation had been, on the average, largely decreased since the coming into power of the Liberal government in 1896. But I do not wish to digress.
The Finance Minister has been complimented on having made a frank statement on introducing the Bill. Well, why cannot he be frank with all the members of the House while we are dealing with this section of the personnel of the commission? Why cannot he tell us now that he win appoint men who, he is confident, and the government is confident, and who he is confident the country will be confident, are men who will see to it that every class in Canada shall be carefully looked after in the work they propose to carry out? Cannot he tell us that?


William Thomas White: I thought I had said that, in substance.


David Bradley Neely: Perhaps the hon. minister did say it in substance. But we all know very well that human nature is human nature the world over. And if the hon. gentlemen propose under this Bill to appoint three gentlemen as members of this permanent tariff board who are known throughout the ioountry to be partisan politicians or who do not represent in themselves the various and to some extent the conflicting interests of which this country and every country are made up, then we shall be justified in suspicion as to the operation of the Bill.


Mr. STAPLES.: What three elements does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Neely) think should be represented?


David Bradley Neely: If I were responsible for the Bill, I should tell the hon. gentleman very quickly. Not .being responsible, I have no hesitation in telling him any way. In the first place, I think the farmers should be represented; in the second place the great labouring interests should be represented; then, as I have no fight with the manufacturers-none whatever-I see no reason why the manufacturing and industrial interests of Canada should not also be represented. And while I am opposed to the creation of this board and think it unnecessary, and think that the effect will probably be bad, yet I say to the hon. minister that if he will state that these interests shall be represented, much of my objection to the Bill will absolutely disappear.


William D. Staples: I am not going to make a speech, for I think that ample has been said on both sides and the Bill might go forward. But I want to put a question or two to my hon. friend (Mr. Neely). He seems much concerned about the interests of the people of the west. I think he is quite justified in being so, he also stated there is serious and strenuous opposition to this legislation. I want to ask my hon. friend, is he not aware of the fact that when the right hon. leader of this House (Mr. Borden) came to the western country previous to the campaign, he stated clearly that he would appoint such a commission as is here proposed? Does he not also know that when the speech from the Throne was made on the 10th of November last, this subject was mentioned in that speech? Does he not know also that in fulfillment of these promises this Bill has been presented to this House? Now, the hon. gentleman has spoken of certain elements in the country as deserving that such a commission should not be appointed. Let me ask him, has he any resolutions from the farmers organizations or any other organizations opposing this measure? The whole apposition is on the part of the other side of this House. And for what purpose? For political purposes and nothing else.
But you are not making any headway; even the press of the country is not coming to your 'assistance. You are simply wasting the time of the House for no other object than political advantage.


Hugh Guthrie: I think I should call the attention of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) to the remark he made a moment ago, when he said that the Toronto ' Globe ' understood the nature of the Bill now before the House, and he read an extract from the ' Globe ' of January 6. I remember that article in the ' Globe ' because it rather complimented the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Foster) for the stand he is supposed to have taken in the Cabinet Council in opposition to the broader measure which it was the intention, I believe, of the government to bring down. The point to which I take exception is that the member for Peel read an extract from the editorial column of the ' Globe,' and anyone who did not understand the situation would say that the ' Globe ' must have known on the 6th of January what this Bill contained, that the [DOT] Globe ' must have had some private wire from the Minister of Finance. But what lie read, in fact, was the Toronto ' Mail and Empire's ' words, and not the ' Globe's ' words at all.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend pass it over to me?


Hugh Guthrie: The article reads as follows:
A statement in the ' Mail and Empire ' as to the scope and functions of the Tariff Commission ' to he created by the government as soon as parliament gives authority therefor, indicates that the ' commission ' is not to be a commission at all in the commonly understood significance of the term. The Canadian commission', we are told, -
Now come in the inverted commas:
__[DOT] will in no way correspond to the proposed
tariff commission in the United States, where the tariff commission, as distinguished from (he tariff hoard, contemplates the creation of a body authorized to raise, lower, or suspend customs duties with the approval of the President. The Canadian commission will have no ^ executive functions, and will in no way usurp the right of parliament to regulate imposed duties. It will report to the government findings of fact and evidence upon which the same are predicated, and these will be laid before parliament in justification of such fiscal changes as may from time to time be proposed by the government/
That is the statement of the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' quoted by the ' Globe.'
I will send the paper to my hon. friend. He marked it himself where he^ was quoting, and he will see the quotation marks. How, in the very nature of tilings, could the ' Globe ' know the contents of this Bill? Nobody on this side of the House knew it until Wednesday last when it was introduced.


Richard Blain: I was careful to say, and my hon. friend must know, that when this matter was first introduced, the press on both sides of politics understood fully what the intention of the government was.
I did not suggest for a moment, that this article was written after the introduction of the Bill, because I knew, as my hon. friend knows, that the Bill was only introduced last Wednesday, and I gave the

date of the ' Globe ' when I read the article.


Hugh Guthrie: That is not my (point, my point is that the hon. gentleman led the House to understand that he was quoting from the ' Globe ' article. My hon. friend knows very well, that what he read, is not a statement from the Toronto ' Mail and Empire ' at all, it is an editorial of the Toronto ' Globe,' commenting upon a statement made a few days ago by the Toronto ' Mail and Empire.'


Richard Blain: The Canadian Commission will have no executive functions, and will in no way usurp the right of parliament to regulate imposed duties.
Hon. gentlemen will see at once, that that was not a quotation from the ' Mail and Empire.' I have the ' Mail and Empire ' now under my hand, and I will read it again. This is the Toronto ' Globe ' commenting upon an article written a few days prior by the ' Mail and Empire,' not a quotation at all, but in the editorial columns, without any suggestion, except the suggestion that the ' Globe ' itself was agreeing with a statement in the ' Mail and Empire.'	.
The Canadian Commission will have no executive functions, and will in no way usurp the right of parliament to regulate imposed duties. It will report to the government findings of fact and evidence upon which the same are predicated, and these will loo laid before parliament in justification of such fiscal changes as may from time to time he proposed by the government.


Hugh Guthrie: Is that clause not in inverted commas?


Richard Blain: No, I think not, and my hon. friend must know that.


Hugh Guthrie: Why, I can almost see them from here.


Richard Blain: Without taking up the time ot the House, I will produce before the debate closes, the article written in the Toronto 1 Mail and Empire ' to which this ' Globe ' editorial refers.


Hugh Guthrie: Now the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Porter) is looking at the article. Does he not see the inverted commas?


Richard Blain: My hon. friend from Hastings says no, and I will put the article in the hands of the Chairman.


Mr. CROTHERS.: The principal argument presented by the right hon. leader of the opposition, and many of his supporters was based upon a statement alleged to have been made by the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal, (Mr. Ames). I do not think the right hon. leader of the opposi-


Richard Blain: tion was quite just to my hon. friend from St. Antoine in not reading all that he said on that occasion. The House will bear with me for a moment while I read two or three sentences, including the phrase referred to by the leader of the opposition. On page 2702 of ' Hansard ' my hon. friend from St. Antoine is reported in these words:
If I may be permitted to offer advice to the ministers, I would say that they should not necessarily confine their choice to men who have fought^ and bled foT the Conservative party. I think that if there is any man in Canada who is eminently fitted for this position, he should not he rejected by reason of his previous political record. We want the biggest men we can get, but we want men who are not out of sympathy with the polioy that the party on this side of the House avowedly stands for. We want men who are not out of sympathy with the idea that protection, reasonably applied, is what Canada needs for her development. Let us have three big, broadminded Canadians, every one a man of administrative ability, who can organize and arrange the work and prepare the lines of investigation.
I do not see what the hon. gentleman could have said in favour of men to be appointed to this position more clearly than what he did say. To say that he desired three men who were in favour of protection to be appointed to this board, was only an indirect and polite way of saying that he did not desire the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), to be a member of that board.


David Bradley Neely: Is the hon. gentleman apologizing or explaining the position of the member for St. Antoine, when he says that the member for Red Deer should not be appointed on that board? Is it not simply a question of the information that this board is to get?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I am coming to that. I say that is only an indirect and polite way of saying that he was not in favour of the member for Red Deer being a member of this board, because he could not find a gentleman, even on the other side of the House, who was not in favour of protection. The difference between members on this side of the House and members on the other side of the House is that we preach protection and practise protection; whereas hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House preach free trade and practise protection. Now, in dealing with trade and commerce by way of tariffs, the legislature may take one of several positions. It may say that it is in favour of absolute free trade.
I do not know any civilized nation that has	ever taken	that position,
t(hat has ever adopted absolute free trade, trade unrestricted in any respect whatever. It is not pretended that free

trade in that sense is practised even in England. Another position may be taken in favour of a tariff for revenue only. Many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House have referred to that position. To speak of a tariff foe revenue only with incidental protection is misleading. You may have a tariff for revenue only and still have eliminated from that tariff.all principle of protection. Is there any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who desires to take a position in favour of a tariff for revenue having eliminated from that tariff the principle of protection? England collects a large revenue.


Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).: Does England collect any revenue on material produced in England?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I was just coming to that. The point I was trying to make is that you may have a tariff for revenue and have eliminated from that tariff all principle of protection. That is the sort of revenue tariff, as I understand it, that is practised in England. England collects a large revenue from imports into England consisting of things that are not produced in England. England is consistent as a revenue tariff country and from that tariff is eliminated all principle of protection. As my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) knows very well, that is the principle of free traders. They take the ground that if they are to raise a revenue at all they are to collect that revenue upon imports of articles that are not produced in the country. As an illustration of that you have in England a tax of 10 cents a pound on tea. Is there an hon. gentleman in this House who will say that he is in favour of a tariff of that kind from which the principle of protection is entirely eliminated? Not by any means. Hon. gentlemen opposite never attempted to introduce a tariff of that kind. They went up and down this country from the time that Sir John Macdonald introduced the National Policy resolutions in this House in 1876, until 1896- twenty years- leading the people to believe that if they were successful at the polls they would introduce the principle of free trade. But, when they came into power they proceeded to practise protection, they have practised it ever since and they are in favour of it to-day; that is in the sense that they are not in favour of eliminating from our tariff the principle of protection. I do not think the right hon. leader of the opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) will get up in this House and say that in that sense he is a free trader; nor would any other gentleman on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely) said a few minutes ago that he was in favour of a tariff for revenue. That is not the question. If he is a free trader,
to be consistent, he must say: I am in favour of a tariff having eliminated from it all principle of protection, and if he is not prepared to go that far he is in favour of protection and not free trade. So, I say that there is not an hon. gentleman on the other side of the House who is in favour of free trade.
An hon. GENTLEMAN. There is one.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Except the hon. member for Red Deer. It was stated by my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Mr. Borden), this afternoon, in answer to a statement to the effect that the members of this board would likely be three Conservatives, that he was not aware that during the fifteen years when the Liberal government were in power they had ever appointed a Conservative to a prominent position. I think he was substantially correct. I have thought over the matter with reference to the Supreme Court of Ontario, and I find that durilng the fifteen years of the Liberal government they appointed sixteen members to the Supreme Court, that out of the sixteen, fifteen were pronounced Liberals, and one was a mild Conservative, and we all know the influences that secured him that position.


An hon. MEMBER.: And every judge in Manitoba.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: And every judge in Manitoba. As far as I am aware my right hon. friend the leader of the government was quite right in saying that there had never been a Conservative appointed to any position of influence in this country during the whole fifteen years that hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. I do not think that I would go as far as my hon. friend from Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). I think the government will be able to find in this country, trom the Atlantic to the Pacific, three Conservative* well qualified to fill the position, and I hope they will appoint three Conservatives. I have no doubt they will appoint men who are in favour of protection, just as the leader of the opposition is in favour of protection in that he is not in favour of eliminating from the tariff all principles of protection. It seems to be admitted by all parties that it is not safe to proceed to revising the tariff without securing some special information. If I remember aright, the Conservative government, in the year 1893, prior to the revision of the tariff, sent three or four members of the government about the country to gather special information. I suppose they were all partisans. They went about the country, and manufacturers and others appeared before them, each man who appeared before them presenting his particular view of the

matter. Then, we had a revision of the tariff in 1897, and we had three members of the right hon. gentleman's cabinet going about the country, and I suppose they were partisans just as the committee of the Conservative Cabinet in 1893, went about the country, partisans, gathering up evidence. Again, in 1907, the Liberal government sent three members of the Cabinet, three partisans, through the country to procure information with regard to the revision of the tariff. So it is admitted by all that it is essential, before dealing with the tariff, to secure special information with regard to it. The methods that we have heretofore adopted have been to send out three or four partisans to get that information, and yet the right hon. gentleman objects to this board, because, he says-, it will be composed of partisans. We have nothing but partisans heretofore going "about looking for such information. This board will not only get facts, but they will investigate, they will inquire, they will not accept the statements of gentlemen, perhaps manufacturers or others, who desire a particular duty placed upon a particular article. They will investigate and inquire into all the facts, they will find out what the article costs, what proportion of the cost of production is and should be assigned to wages. I am specially interested in that. I would like to know what proportion of the cost of any article should be assigned to wages. So, we must boil it all down to this question, whether we are to have an independent board who will inquire and investigate and get at the bottom of things, or whether we shall endeavour to get at the information as we have done heretofore by three or four members of the government going about the country, and in a desultory manner getting such facts and views as they could from different parties interested in regard to the tariff. There seems to be no ground whatever, for objection to this Bill, and I think it should be accepted at once.


Michael Clark: Mr. Chairman, my fear is the very opposite of the hope which has been expressed by the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothers).
He expresses the hope that the Tariff Commission would get down to the bottom of things; my fear is that it will get the tariff up to the top of things. My hon. friend threw out a very curious challenge when he knew that my humble personality was on this side of the House- I rather think he withdrew that challenge afterwards in my own particular case, but for fear it might be still standing I accept it with cheerfulness and I hope with courage and with the ability to give a good reason for 'accepting it. The hon. gentleman said: was there any hon. gentleman Mr.'CROTHERS.
on this side of the House who could go in for what he vex'y correctly described as a tariff for revenue only. Well, I would and for this most obvious reason; that the tariff is a system of taxation, and we are all seeking science in a system of taxation. Now, when you collect on things that are only made outside of Canada, everything you take except the expenses of collection goes to the revenues of the country and, therefore, that is an approach at any rate, to a scientific system of taxation. When you put a tariff upon an article produced in the country, you collect duties for the country, and so far so good; but you collect two revenues, you collect another revenue for the interested minority inside the country. It is to the second revenue I object as toeing the most unscientific thing in taxation that one can conceive. I would like to say a word or iwo about the very interesting remarks made by my hon. friend, from Peel (Mr. Blain). I always like to hear my hon. friend, and sometimes he has followed me in debate and I was mt even then very much put out by him, but the boot is on the other foot to-night, and I certainly will not try to put him out by anything but fair argument. I was very much struck with what seemed to have occurred to him, namely, that the tariff is still and constantly with us. I think that is a most peculiar circumstance; it is a curious thing that the tariff is everywhere. I read a paragraph in a leading paper in the United States the other day, which said:	Congress will have most of its time this year taken up with the tariff; Congress has had most of its time taken up by the tariff for the last throe .yelars. Heirs, we in Canada have talked tariff fior twelve months, fought the hardest and best-nat-ured battle we could on tariff, and we come back to parliament and we meet tariff again. It is peculiar; I agree with my hon. friend. He says the tariff will be with us for many years, and I say it will be with us until it is treated in the only way it is proper to treat it, and that is with a bludgeon. The only thing to iiand out to the tariff is a club, and when it is treated in that wav, you will gc-t rid of it, at any rate for a long time. It is perfectly true, that in the fifty years during which Britain was so busy building up i world trade which will baffle all readers of all future times, she could not attend to tariff matters at all; it is perfectly true that after fifty years a very great statesman was able to get some thought concentrated upon it, but- I think the people are over-hopeful who at the present moment are looking for a return to protective principles in Britain.
It is a very unwise thing to prophecy, but I will prophecy that Germany will be

a free trade country before Britain returns to protection, and I make that prophecy with, I think, some kind of authority, based on the marvellous results of the recent elections in Germany. As I have said, it strikes me as being most peculiar that this government, of all others, should be dealing with tariff questions at this moment, because we have just fought an election, and we fought it on a specific principle on the ipart of hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the House, laid down by the leader of their party who is now Prime Minister of the Government. One of the strongest points in the right hon. gentleman's speech in this House was: Let well enough alone. Well, why is not the government doing it; are things not well enough? The position of the government is the most vastly illogical I can conceive. They have won the election and they all proclaim (that rproteiction won it; then why have they not the courage of their convictions to put the tariff up? What are they frightened about? However, that is anticipating what I am going to say. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) also made a very impassioned defence of the manufacturers of the country. I cannot understand his point of view; of course, I suppose he cannot understand mine. He said: these gentlemen have put their capital into their business. Where did they get the capital? Well, just ias the consumers have got a very much smaller amount, by making it for themselves, the only way a self-respecting man wants to get capital. I tried to teach in a little debate the other day, in which I am afraid I was misunderstood by some of the workingmen of the country, the idea that you will only have good workingmen when you teach them to be self-supporting, but I have more sympathy with the workingman than with the manufacturer, who wants to lean upon the shoulders of a bolstering and supporting government. My hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), occupies a little more detached position than some of his colleagues, he does not have that seat in the Cabinet which many of us w'ould have liked to have seen him have, and I do not for one moment, say that as a taunt. But, the hon. gentleman (Air. Blain) used to be a very active member of the Opposition side of the House, and I want to argue with him on this question and to try to make my position clear to him. He looks at the interests of the manufacturers; while I look upon the interests of the consumer, entirely so, and I do it on a very simple principle, I can find it in Adam Smith, and I can find it in almost the same words in Bastiat. They both lay down the principle, the end of all production is consumption. I do not think there is a man or boy in Canada to-night who does not believe that this is obviously true. If the
end of all production is consumption, and if you look after the consumers, you are looking after everybody. That is the difference between my point of view and the point of view of my hon. friend from Peel. Is it not as clear as a sunbeam at mid-day that if you see that you have plenty ot consumers in your country, and plenty of things that they consume, there will be nothing wrong with the producers? If you have consumers in great numbers there will always be plenty of consumption and the producers are the natural consequence. I do not feel that I need, in this informal discussion, go further into the subject of the general position of free trade versus protection. I am sorry that my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) is not in the chamber, but I know he will do me the honour to read what I say about him in ' Hansard.' I always like to see him rise in the House; I like the lineaments, of his face, and I like him -when he goes on to show up what I must confess are the variegated views of the (party, even on this side of the House. But I wanted to tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) that I am not at all sure that he is not the real Diabolus in this play. We all remember that when he was once asked in this House, he was then sitting in Opposition, what he would do about the British preference, he made no bones about the kind of protection he believed in; there was no sentiment about him. He replied: you give me fifty of a majority on the government benches, and I will soon let you see what I will do with the British preference.
May I again appeal to the courage of my hon. friends opposite. If those are their opinions, why do they not carry them out? If they are not their opinions, why do they seek to put the subject on one side by. referring it to a Tariff Commission? We have heard a good deal of the need of information. Well, we cannot have too much information; I concede that point very readily. We have, however, some information on tariffs, and on tariff commissions already. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance interests me. I have heard the hon. member described as a moderate protectionist. Well, Sir, they all begin that way; the becoming of a full-blown protectionist is a rake's progress, they all begin in that fashion. I remember very well Mr. Alorley pointing out, when Mr. Chamberlain first began his propagandism in England, that in France they put the molest little duty of 1 shilling and 10 pence on flour, and said there would never be any reason to raise it. There was soon a duty of 12 shillings, an increase of 500 per cent. All protectionists begin as moderate protectionists. I am afraid I would have to describe myself as an immoderate antiprotectionist, because I reaffirm my strong belief in the club as the proper way to deal

with all tariffs. We have some facts about the tendency of tariffs, and we have these facts as to the tendencies of tariffs under commissions. I have given a fact as I could give many others, as to the tendency of tariffs, which is nearly always to rise. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has tried to prove that that happened under the government of my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and with men struggling in the strength of their low tariff ardour to ho'ld the tariff down, if the rates rose under such aegis and protection, what route would they naturally take when they have their friends behind them? How can they do anything but rise? I should be very much mistaken if I should be successfully contradicted when I say that the tendency of tariffs is to rise under commissions, and that that was proved to the hilt in the countries of Germany and the United States, which have always been the countries from which supporters of protection have derived their main argument. You appoint your commission, up goes the tariff.


Arthur Meighen: Does the hon. gentleman say that applies to the United States?


Michael Clark: As far as my information goes.


Arthur Meighen: It must go a very short distance.


Michael Clark: I would like to have successful contradiction. I said the kind I wanted was successful; I did not know that there had been any reduction in the United States since the time a tariff was first made. When were the reductions made?


Arthur Meighen: The hon. gentleman stated that wherever a commission was appointed, the tariff went up and that that applied to the United States. I contradicted that. I wish plainly to state -that I am right and my hon. friend is wrong, that the tariff has not gone up in the United States since the commission was appointed, and furthermore, every recommendation based on the commission's report has been for a revision downwards.


Michael Clark: Will my hon. friend be good enough to specify some of the articles which have been reduced by the action of the commission, and will he state in addition that there has been no rise in the tariffs?


Arthur Meighen: I shall state positively that there has been no rise. The Payne-Ald-rich tariff went into effect in 1909, and under the same Act that put that tariff into effect the Tariff Board was appointed. Since that tariff went into effect there has been no rise. The hon. gentleman for Red Deer stated the contrary. On the facts adduced Mr. CLARK (Red Deer).
by the Tariff Commission, and I refer specifically to wool, known as schedule 'K' in the Customs Act, the President of the United States has made strong recommendations to Congress for the reduction of the wool schedule.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It has not been done.


Arthur Meighen: It haj not been done, but the commission in so far as it has interfered has endeavoured to have it brought down and it is only a matter of time.


Michael Clark: I am very glad that my hon. friend has been able to prove that in the United States a Tariff Commission has actually produced a recommendation for a reduction, I am glad to have my information on the tariff increased.


Arthur Meighen: May I refer to the pulp and paper schedules in which a reduction has actually taken place?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That had nothing to do with the recommendation of the board.


Arthur Meighen: The board reported on the schedule.


Mr. CLARK (Ded Deer).: That happened as part of an arrangement of which my hon. friend was one of the most bitter opponents.


Arthur Meighen: What difference does that make?


Thomas Wilson Crothers: Are you prepared to retract what you said to the effect that wherever there was a Tariff Commission appointed the duties had gone up, and your reference to the United States?


Michael Clark: If my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie says he has handed his honour and his ability to conduct a debate over to the Minister of Labour, I will do anything that he says.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That js not answering the question.


Michael Clark: I would remind my hon. friend that this is the second time he has had to be reminded of that kind of thing, because the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) told him emphatically one evening that he felt quite equal to looking after himself.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: I ask you whether you would retract the statement I have quoted?


Michael Clark: If everybody on that side of the House including the Minister of Labour was as anxious to learn the true facts on the tariff question, three-fourths of the people of Canada would be free traders at the next election.


Thomas Wilson Crothers: That is no answer.


Michael Clark: It is a genera! statement which conveys an answer, it tells

my hon. friend of an honest and bpen mind. Does 'he think I wiant to gain a single point in debate or in my position on the tariff question by making a statement which I know to .be false? If I think it is right, why what can I do to retract it, but I am going to reiterate the statement and I am going to say that the evidence drawn from the United States is an extremely slight one, as to the tendency of tariffs under commissions. It is a certainty they went up permanently in Germany. They could not go up much higher in either Germany or .the United States. With two-thirds of the people in Germany becoming Socialists and two-fifths of those in the United States (becoming paupers, it is .extremely difficult to say" what the course of the tariff will .be in the future.
The Minister of Finance referred to this S3 a pillow fight. After he has had a little more experience of tariff debates in this House and is a little more able to take care of himself, than he can possibly be now although his abilities are very great, we will give him as much as he likes but he need not be afraid of suffering from too much pillow fighting on this question. He spoke of it being a bogey. It is a bogey if a bogey is a thing that frightens. YTou* talk about new facts. We have too many facts. He proclaimed his belief in the new facts and followed that by a reference to the election of September 21st.
He said that if we had known more facts then we would not perhaps have had that election. Well, I can only inform him and the government that we know more facts in the west now. I received a letter this morning from a friend of mine, an intelligent farmer in my own constituency. It comes from a part of the ^country where is to be found the finest land in Alberta. It was written by a sturdy, strongdieaded Scotsman originally, who was for many years in the United States .and came to western Canada, when so many other men in the United States, came over. He tells me that ninety per cent of the inhabitants there would be anxious to-day to sell their holdings at $10 an acre less than they would have been induced to take for their land by any means before the 21st of September last. My hon. friend from Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) smiles incredulously, but of course he has, no regard for the farmers on the prairie. His regard is limited to the lumber combine of British Columbia. My hon, friend from Peel (Mr. Blain.) said that reciprocity Jay heavily on our minds, and this intelligent farmer in my constituency tells me in his letter that the wheat is lying heavy on the prairie. How can you expect to make Canada a great and successful country by means of a ridiculous economical fiscal policy of that kind? Can you not see that
we are more likely to make Canada the prosperous country she ought to be by filling the stomachs of hundreds of poor families in the slums than by building up multi-millionaires in the palaces of" our cities. I see that I am exciting some interest among hon. gentlemen opposite, and I have no doubt that in a little time we may succeed in getting some sound ideas accepted by hon. gentlemen opposite, because they are not had-hearted men, but just a little wrong-headed on this question.


William D. Staples: Would the hon. gentleman be good enough to read that letter?


Michael Clark: My right hon. friend the leader of the opposition has it. I do not expect credence from imy hon. friend from Macdonald (Mr. Staples), but if he wants to challenge imy .statement I am quite willing to accept his challenge and let the House judge between us.


William D. Staples: I only wish to point out that when .an hon. gentleman refers to a letter or any other document, he may be called on to quote it and put it on record in 'Hansard.'


Michael Clark: For my hon. friend's information and that of the House, I would point out that a few days, or it might have been a few weeks-and a few weeks are only .a few days in the history of a country-before September 21 there were 600 inquiries sent to a real estate office as to the value of lands and the opportunities for investment and immigrat'on to that part of the country, but since the election those inquiries have dwindled down -all told to 24. I need hardly point out to hon. members of this House, whose fathers were pioneers in this country, trying to make an honest living out of it, that it is all very well to 'build up millionaires, but you will never build up a strong, prosperous country unless you have strong yeomen on your farms, and you cannot have these unless you give them a square and fair deal in this matter. Facts are" what we want, and I have given a few.
I now come to close quarters with this proposition for the establishment of a tariff commission. It is the business of government and parliament to get the facts for themselves. Imagine Mr. Gladstone or Mr. Goschen, or Lord Randolph Churchill, or Mr. Low, or Sir Robert. Peel, or Mr. Lloyd George, or Mr. Asquith, all Chancellors of the Exchequer within the last two generations-imagine their being told, that they should appoint a commission to do those things which it is essentially the function of parliament and governments to do. When I came to this country Mr. Fielding with other members of the government, of which he was a distinguished member, were members of a temporary

commission-very different from that which we are appointing under this Bill, which is to be a permanent one. Mr. Fielding has gone from this House now and has left behind him no personal enmity but many strong admirers. When Mr. Fielding went about the country on that temporary commission he showed on many occasions that he knew more about the business of the men who appeared before him than they even knew themselves. In that respect he was superior to other members of the board which is a criticism that I know will commend itself to hon. gentlemen opposite. One gentleman who appeared before that commission in connection with the tariff on dried apples, said he was as quick as a needle and knew everything about that subject. It was his duty to know it for the information of his own department.


An hon. MEMBER.: Dried apples?


Michael Clark: There are some interruptions, Mr. Speaker, which I must pass over in silence. We had in Mr. Fielding an example of greater industry than we have had in parliament this long while. My hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) introduced into this House a resolution in favour of free agricultural implements. If imy memory serves me rightly my h'on. friend corrected me brfore, and he now has an opportunity to set me right if I have not accurately stated his resolution.


Arthur Meighen: I am sorry that I shall again have to correct my hon. friend.


Michael Clark: What then did my hon. friend do? I guarantee it is not what he is going to do now.


Arthur Meighen: I would have thought that the hon. member for Red Deer, before discussing what I did would have tried to know what really was the resolution I did move on that occasion to which he refers. That resolution was to the effect that in my judgment the time had come when the agriculturists of Canada were entitled to substantial reduction on farm implements, such as would not, under the circumstances, be inconsistent with a protective tariff.


Michael Clark: I stand corrected with all the grace possible, but let me tell my hon. friend that in every western constituency, where I took any part in the last election, certainly in my own, every three cent advocate-and I am not using that expression in a professional sense-of anti-reciprocity said that Mr. Borden, if elected to power, would give this immense boon of free agricultural implements.
I should not be surprised if there were three-cent advocates-again not in a professional sense-in the constituency of Mr. CLARK (Red Deer)
Portage la Prairie to promise some things of that kind on behalf of my hon. friend. However, the question about the terms of the resolution is a small one. My point is that he made a speech in support of that resolution, a speech which I oo not know7 I have any great reason to admire. For he was not very kind to me at the beginning. He referred to me in a way that hurt me, andi I have always regarded with favour a dictum of Cardinal Newman that a gentleman, even if he have not the term ' hon.' b.efore his name, wall not willingly wound any man. The hon. gentleman called ane an ' exotic.' Mr. Chairman, I have observed that if ever I want a slur upon the person of the Englishman or the policy of England, I must always go to the English party in this country for it; I have not got it on the other side. However, I was not very much put out, I would like to tell my hon. friend. But I was a good deal more put out than I would have been if he had brought his resolution on at a time when w7e could all have debated it, for if I had had a chance to reply to him, I should not have been put out-at least, I would have tried to do as much putting out as was done to me. After all, the term was not a very worthy one. The question of a man's views on protection and free trade is not a question of whether those' views do or do not come from England. If they do come from England, are they any worse for that in the eyes of hon. gentlemen who, forsooth, have just refused to have truck or trade with the Yankee, because they are such Englishmen? Why, then, should a man or opinion be called ' exotic,' because he or it comes from England? The question is, does the man stand lor freedom, does he stand for truth, does he stand for justice? If he and his views stand for freedom, truth and justice, I want to tell my hon. friend that the more ' exotics ' of that kind you get into Canada the better. But I want to tell him also that truth and justice and freedom are not exotics^ in Canada, though we could do with a little more freedom-a great deal more freedom -on the trade question.
We have a speech made by the hon. member, I listened to that speech, and it seemed to me very admirable and very convincing; that was not very difficult for he had a favourable audience when talking of reduction of tariffs. But he was kind to the House. He told us the mechanism of the speech, the process of its manufacture. He said: I collected these statements tnyself. So, we knew how he went about it. I am not criticising my hon. friend; he must not be uneasy, I am commending him. He did these things himself, he told us, and he produced an admirable and convincing speech. I believe it is unanswerable. I w.a;s not incommoded

by tlie man wtho came into any riding and ispoke in favour of free agricultural implements, because I am in favour of free agricultural implements myself-as I am in favour of free everything else-But what greater credit could come to a young and ambitious member of parliament than to take up a case like that and prove it? Is not that his high duty and function as a member of parliament? What are these ministers going to do to earn their salaries when they get all these commissions appointed? Probably the most soholary and (best informed individual Tory I have met in this country said to me: I do not see what responsible government is coming to; what are we doing, making all these commissions? I agreed most emphatically with what he said. It is nothing less than an infraction of the principles of responsible government- You are handing over your duties, as we are handing over our responsibilities, to a commission. We have the word of the Minister of Finance that he would in every case give very great weight to what the commissioners said. And why not? If you pay men anything from $5,000 to $7,500, they ought to have some weight,-they certainly get some weight. They are to be an advisory board. If they give you advice and you take it they fix your faxes. If they give you .advice and you do not take it, you take back to the government -and to' parliament the -responsibilities of which -you have divested you-rs-elf and which you have given over to the commission. Th-ere -is no getting -away from the dilemma.
I was surprised to hear my right hon friend the Prime Minister compare his commission to a court. The -highest court in any British country is the high court of parliament itself; and when you make a smaller court-call it -a commission or what you may-and give it the duty that parliament has performed -within the British Empire from time immemorial, you Reduce the dignity and effectiveness of parliament and make it very likely that the status of a ^member of parliament and a member of the government will be lowered. P-arliament has been called not only 'the high court of parliament' but also the 'high inquest of the nation'-the high inquiring place, inquiring by the operations of their own minds. That is how they have earned the distinction that has crowned English_ statesmen in all generations, and that is how we have built up the greatest parliamentary institutions the world has ever seen.
Something has been said of the cost of production. My view is that there is a thing which a member of parliament has no right to talk about. For my part, I would begin to discuss the tariff at a much earlier point. And, personally, I do not
want any one to tell me about the cost of production on my farm; that is my business-; and, under freedom, I would run it and compete with the world. Talk about the defence of interests by acts ef government-I wish men on this side of the Atlantic would study, more than they find time to do in these busy days, the works of some of the biggest anen. Ralph Waldo ^ Emerson, than whom no prose writer is more worthy of our attention, dealing with this very argument, said: If you want to make men do not protect them by the shabby artifices of cunning tariffs; let their work defend them, let their works speak for thefrn. That is the 'cost of production' that I would like Canadians to go into.
I have tried to say a few words upon the principle of this Bill. I believe that it is emphatic-ally a new and a wrong departure. We have heard something about it being borrowed from the United States, and borrowed from Germany. I can conceive of no smaller r61e for Canada than borrowing the discarded ideas of any country, and in borrowing higher protection to-day, not even the member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) can say that he is likely to be borrowing very long from Germany. In Germany has happened an election only less in its consequence than that which happened when the repeal of the corn laws was carried in Britain. For the remarkable thing about these German elections is that the universal opinion of the population in the cities of that country that have returned Socialists is in favour of free trade. Their victories have been won even at the seat of royalty itself, there are 4,400,000 men, every one of them pledged to free trade, and thank God, also pledged to a reduction of armaments. We have had a scare on the question of armaments, which I do not think is affecting Canada so much now. But I am afraid that on this question of a Tariff Commission we have a scare with much more reality in it, but I shall only be too pleased if I happen to be wrong.


Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) opened with a statement that I had rather offended him in what I said in January, 1911. I was not only surprised but I was quite unable to conceive anything that I said that could have given rise to that conviction in his mind. However, it appears that the word ' exotic ' was not congenial to my hon friend.


Michael Clark: It was very flattering. It means a rich, rare and tropical plant.


Arthur Meighen: It is still more difficult to understand the offence that my hon. friend took from the word as it now appears

to him. There is no one less desirous of wounding the feelings of the hon. member for Red Deer than myself. Since the days that he entered the House I do not think that he has had a more attentive listener to his remarks than the humble member for Portage la Prairie. I have often marvelled, at and indeed I have studied to acer-tain the secret, of that most unusual power by which he is able to make what appeals, when read in ' Hansard,' as a very unconvincing speech when heard in the House itself spoken from his lips, most impressive. The term which I used of course strictly in the sense in which I understood it, that is to say as representing one born in another clime of thought, if I may so speak, and on another soil who has not yet reached in this country the stage where conditions are as familiar to him and as conducive to sane opinion as were the conditions in the old land. That was the sense in which I used it. My recollection of the word hovers around a very illustrious statesman, I think Robert Lowe, who first used that word in the English parliament, and Mr. Lowe, as the member for Red Deer will remember, was one of the most talented debaters that ever sat in the British House of Commons. In introducing this word he applied it to no less a distinguished institution than the established Church of England, and referred to it as an exotic plant on Irish soil. So the hon. member for Red Deer must realize that when I used the word in January, 1911, it was far from being intended in an offensive sense, because I have every respect for his opinions, as I have for the opinions of every other member of this House. The hon. member seems to think that I harbour some opinions .antagonistic to English immigration. How could he take such an inference from anything I said? I am sure that we welcome in this country every Englishman, no matter how rabid a free trader he may be. When I study history, I find that the right hon. leader, whom the member for Red Deer so humbly, and at one time so servilely followed, only fifteen years ago, preached doctrines now firmly believed in by the member for Red Deer; an.! when I reflect how far he has advanced since coming into closer contact with conditions in Canada, I may hope that in the course of fifteen years longer he (the hon. member for Red Deer) will even become qualified for a Conservative administration. The member for Red Deer also regretted that he did not have an opportunity of replying to my remarks last January. Now it is quite true that the motion'w,as moved on Wednesday, hut the member for Red Deer well knows that on three subsequent occasions it was reached on the order paiper, and on each occasion the right hon. leader of the opposition, Mr. MEIGITEN.
then leading the government, moved the adjournment of the House. I think on two of those occasions, I myself, rose and protested, and urged that the right hon. gentleman should permit a further discussion of this question, hut every one was silent on the government side, and no one was more silent than the member for Red Deer himself.


John Gillanders Turriff: Before this clause passes, I would like to say a word or two. I am opposed to this Bill for the particular reason that it is asked for, and is in the interest of oniy one class in the country. Outside of the manufacturers, no class of people have asked for a Tariff Commission. There is no class of people outside the manufacturers who can benefit by this Tariff Commission. This Tariff Commission is to be appointed by the government for only one purpose, there is only _ one purpose that it can serve, and that is to advance the interests of the manufacturers of Canada. The Manufacturers' Association time and again, year after year, have asked that this commission should be appointed. Now, if it were simply for the purpose of getting statistics and information, the Minister of Finance has had a good business experience, and he could very well, with the officials in his own department, procure all the information that lie needs. If it was necessary to appoint more officials, he could do so; but- he would have officials who wouid be more likely to be non-partisan than any men who will be appointed by this government.
I think that if my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, was himself naming these commissioners they would be fairly well selected, but the Minister of Finance, if he will allow me to say so, is still somewhat young and innocent in political life, and I am afraid tihat it will not be only his voice that will carry weight, but that it will be the voice of the older sinners in that respect, who will want to make this commission an instrument for the purpose of helping out the manufacturers. Why is the government so ready to fulfil at once this particular promise that the Prime Minister made when he was touring the west? He made several other promises just as emphatically; as he made the promise to appoint a Tariff Commission. We have not heard of any steps on the part of the right hon. gentleman or his government to carry out and fulfil those promises because some of those promises were in response to the demands and applications of the farmers of Canada. This particular one was made in response to the demand and application of the manufacturers of Canada and nobody else. The Minister of Finance acknowledged last Wednesday, when he introduced the Bill that in so far as he knew there had been no demand from anyone

else outside the manufacturers to have this commission appointed.
The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), a few moments ago, referred to wnat protection has done for the farmers. I can tell him what protection is doing for the farmers at the present time in my part of the country. Protection has done this for the farmers, that they have from 50,000 to 500,000 bushels of wheat lying in tthe open, the way you would pile broken stone to make a macadamized road, simply because the elevators are filled up with wheat, and the railways are paralyzed, and cannot supply cars; whereas, if the farmer were in absolutely the same position as the manufacturer he would have a market for his wheat, roads to carry it to market, and he would not be losing that wheat. We who represent agricultural constituencies are naturally afraid of what the effect of this Bill will be, it being a Bill absolutely in the interest of the manufacturers.


Richard Blain: Will my hon friend explain to the House wherein the farmer differs from the manufacturer?


John Gillanders Turriff: In.what regard?


Richard Blain: My hon. friend was pointing out that, the manufacturer had a better opportunity than the farmer to ship his product. Will my hon. friend explain that?


John Gillanders Turriff: The manufacturer is not limited in his market. The manufacturer getsi his raw material free of duty, but the farmer has his raw material taxed by the manufacturer, and does not get it free of duty. In that respect he is at a disadvantage.


Richard Blain: The manufacturer doe- not sell his raw material, and if he wishes to send his manufactured goods to the United States he has to meet their tariff the same .as the farmer has to meet their tariff.


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend can twist around it as much as he likes, but the fact remains that the farmer lias been asking for a market for his product. The manufacturer is not asking for a market for Ins product outside; lie is asking to have the farmer hampered by keeping the duties up so that he will get the market at home. How are you helping the manufacturer, particularly when you are paralysing the purchasing power of the farmer? Where is the purchasing power oJ the farmer who has 1,000, or 2,000, or 5,000. or 10,000, bushels of wheat lying out with the snow' and rain falling on it, and not allowed to send it to the market that is open to the wheat, to the market that wants the wheat and to the man who is willing to pay for the wheat, and who would send that money into Canada where it would go eventually 93


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
to the manufacturer, because it resolves itself into this, as pointed out by the hon. member for Red Deer, that all production ends in consumption? We are afraid of this Bill, because as the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, (Mr. Ames), told us the other day, the whole tendency of this government, with its well defined protective policy, is to increase protection. My hon. friend from Montreal, Si. Antoine, shakes his head. What about the duties now being levied, and the taxes collected on the lumber the farmer uses? What about the engines that are coming in, and that came in at a lower rate of duty a few months ago? They now come in at a higher rate of duty. There is one case in which they have taken the duty off altogether. Why? They took it off at the request of the manufacturers, because it was levied on an article that the manufacturer uses.	i
Air. AMES.: These are merely preventing iand correcting misapplications of the tariff.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, preventing and putting on another interpretation, but ail in the interest of the manufacturers and against the interest of the farmers. That is why we are afraid of this Bill. Let us see what the manufacturers have been doing for a little while back. During the past three years there have been forty-one mergers; 190 individual companies were consolidated into these lorty-one mergers.


Mr.   AAIES@: Is ti e grain growers merger for the purpose of speculating in wheat included in that number?


John Gillanders Turriff: So far I have never heard of any grain growers merger. I have never heard of the grain growers merger, and if it were so the grain growers are not asking for protection to help them but they are asking for free trade. The main growers have not issued millions and millions of dollars of watered stock on which they want to collect from the consumers of Canada, 6, 7, or 8 per cent

stock that is not represented by one dollar of investment; yet that is what the manufacturers are doing and that is what this Bill is going to help them to do. These forty-one amalgamations represent a capitalization of $334,938,266, or almost $350,000,000. Let us see how that works out. T will take one or two individual instances. 1 will take the first on the list and I am quoting now from the 'Monetary Times.' I find first on the list Amalgamated Asbestos, which is a merger that took stock in six ether companies with a total capital-zat-ion of $3,550,000 and I know, as a matter of fact, that of that $3,550,000 a large amount was watered. What was the new capitalization?


EDITION
Mr. STANFIELD.: What are the bonds selling for to-day?


George William Fowler: That was before the 21st September, was it not??


John Gillanders Turriff: If my hon. friends will just keep quiet for a moment they will get all the information they want. This amalgamation has a capitalization of twenty-five million dollars'; and, for the three -and-a-half million dollars the capitalization of the companies they took in, they issued eight million dollars worth of bonds, one million eight hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars preferred stock, and eight million one hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars common stock. The object of that amalgamation was to enable the mien who got the common stock for nothing, to collect dividends from the consumers on that common stock. That particular company has been a failure, as naturally they should, because they went a good deal too far and the bonds are selling at a very low figure to-day, and, so far as I know, the common stock and the preferred stock are worth nothing at all. Now, let us take the Ames-Holden-McCready, Limited, Montreal. That amalgamation took in the Ames-Holden Company with a capitalization of $2,500,000, and the James McCready Company, Limited, with a capitalization o-f $1,000,000, a total of $3,500,000. They capitalized that at $11,500,000, but they did not issue all that. They issued in bonds $1,000,000 and in preference stock $2,500,000, which covered exactly the capitalization of the two companies amalgamated. Then, they issued three million five hundred thousand dollars of common stock, all watered stock, not one dollar of value in it so far as anybody knows. And, this legislation that we are passing to-day is for the purpose of helping -such amalgamations as 1 have mentioned to take out of the farmers and the consumers of Canada interest on that common stock that has been issued.


Herbert Brown Ames: As the name -of a company I have a connection with has been mentioned, may I say one word to the hon. member? I would like to say this: th^t if, upon investigation, it should be discovered by the Tariff Commission that the merger to which the hon. gentleman refers has in the slightest degree enhanced the -selling price of the articles to the consumer, I shall be most willing to consent that the thirty per cent duty which the Liberals put on boots and shoes should be reduced to twenty-five per cent, as it w-as under the Conservative government.


John Gillanders Turriff: And so, the hon. member (Mr. Ame-s) excu-ses the whole thing on the ground that up to the present this amalgamation has not increased the cost of Mr. TURRIFF.
boots and -shoes. That is a statement that I accept from him, but I have heard dozens and scores of people within the last year or so complain of the -advanced price of boms and shoes. I am to-Cray wearing boots -exactly the same as I have worn for years -and I am now paying $1.00 a pair more than I paid for the -same boots a few years ago. They -are not made by the firm with which the hon. -member is connected, but by others. You can go into any store in Ottawa to-day and price boots and shoes and I venture the assertion that tlie-v are twenty per cent or twenty-five per cent higher than they were two or three years ago.


Herbert Brown Ames: We should be delighted to have the Tariff Commission investigate the cost.


John Gillanders Turriff: That is exactly what the hon. gentleman wants; he wants a Tariff Commission, and he wants to name the commissioners, and there is the whole trouble.


Herbert Brown Ames: And if the government should change in the meantime, we would not drop the investigation on that account.


John Gillanders Turriff: I want to point out to the Minister of Finance that I'do not care how honestly he may try he will not be able in the highly protected company he sits in at the council to get a commission that is not more or less- partisan, and this commission is for the purpose of reporting and ascertaining whether these manufacturers such as I have mentioned, and hundreds of others ought to be entitled to get protection enough to enable them to pay a dividend on common stock which is really watered stock. A year ago when the cement merger business came up, what was the argument of these gentlemen? It was, that they were entitled to get dividends on their money. What was the argument in connection with the bounty on steel? Not long ago I was in Alon-treal and a friend of mine who bought some of that common -stock was complaining. Some twenty million dollars of common stock was issued and never one dollar of it went into the treasury of the company, but the innocent purchaser of that stock to-day says; Why should I not get paid interest on that stock.


Air. McCURDY.: Does the hon. gentleman say that no cash was paid into the treasury of the Dominion Steel Company for that common stock?


John Gillanders Turriff: That is what I said, and I got circulars from the Dominion Iron and Steel Company's brokers offering the preference stock at $85, and $100 of common stock t-hrowm in as a bonus, and it was advertised all over the Dominion.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I may state for the information of the hon. gentleman that a certain part of the issued common stock was paid for in cash; at least five million dollars was paid for.


John Gillanders Turriff: Will the hon. member deny my statement that I was offered preference stock at $85 with one share of common stock thrown in as a bonus, for nothing. I know that statement is correct because I had the document in my hands making the offer and it was sent to me by mail.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: I do not know what offers you may have received, but the preference shares were offered for subscription at $85 without any common stock bonus. I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia is entirely mistaken in his statement regarding the preference tstock. I would say further that part of the Dominion Steel Company's issued common stock was paid for in cash, $5,000,000 at a substantial price.


John Gillanders Turriff: May I ask the hon. member what the five million dollars' worth of common stock he has referred to was sold at?


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: About 60 1 think.


John Gillanders Turriff: My information is that it was sold at 15.


Fleming Blanchard McCurdy: That may be some additional cash which went into the treasury of the company.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, I do not care what the particulars are in any one particular case, but I do say that the whole tendency of these mergers is to put out millions and hundreds of millions of dollars worth of common stock, just exactly as in the case of the two companies I have men tioned, and the consumers and the farmers of Canada are expected to pay enhanced prices in order to pay dividends on that common stock which does not represent one dollar in the treasury, and that is all watered practically and should never have been issued. And, the intention of this legislation is to help the manufacturers by having a commission that will be favourable to them. That is what they are asking for. They are asking for a commission to get this information for the Minister of Finance. We all know that if you send out two or three different persons to collect information and make a report they will each differ as to the facts and possibly present reports from their own point of view, but when you have a commission working, as my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) stated, for a government that has' well known protective principles, you will have their report and the evidence, and the manner of 93*
taking the evidence, all with protectionist ideas and leaning towards higher protection.
So far as I can judge from the Bill, they will take the evidence that suits them, any that does not suit them, they do not need to record, and any evidence they take that does not suit the government, the Minister of Finance can place before the House or not, as he likes. There is nothing in this Bill to state that all information and ail findings of the commission will be laid before parliament for the use of the members and of the people of Canada.
Let us see one or two more companies that have amalgamated. Let us take the Dominion Canners, Limited, of Hamilton, Ontario. That conupany absorbed a large number of canning and preserving companies in Ontario. These companies had a total capitalization of $1,574,000. The companies were merged into the Dominion Canners, Limited, of Hamilton, Ontario, with a capitalization of $12,500,000, and for the $1,574,000 of combined capital of all those companies the Dominion Canners issued $1,500,000 in bonds,, $2,100,000 in preferred stock, and $2,100,000 of common stock. The balance of all this stock is in the treasury and it is to their interest, to the interest of the men who were in all these mergers, to have this Tariff Commission, and they are the men who have demanded it from the government, they are the men who want it, who will benefit by it. Nobody else wants it, nobody else has asked for it, and nobody else will benefit by it. The government is, I presume, carrying out pre-election pledges to these people, they are now delivering their part of the bargain.


Mr. GOODEVE.: Would it not be to the interest of the consumer to have a statement of what these men are taking out of the consumer? That is the object of the commission.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, and the Customs Act provides that a judge of one of the High Courts should investigate that, but this Bill takes it out of the hands of the judge, and puts it into the hands of partisans appointed by the hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) and his friends.


Mr. ARTHURS.: How many investigations were there into combines since the introduction of the Act?


John Gillanders Turriff: The Minister of Labour will have all of that information in his department. The paper companies were investigated by a judge and the duties wera reduced in consequence. So my hon. friend will see how much better it has been to leave that part of it as it is, to leave the investigations in the hands of an independent judge, instead of men

[DOT]who may, or may not, be partisans, but who are much more likely to be than not.
Then there is the Matthews-Laing Company. This is an amalgamation of the '-George Matthews Company with a capital [DOT]of $1,000,000; the Park Blackwell Company [DOT]with a Capital of $500,000; and the Laing Packing and Provision Company, Limited, [DOT]with a capital of $500,000, a total of $2,000,-*000. This company has been formed with a capital of $7,000,000 and they have issued in bonds $1,200,000, in preferred stock, $2,000,000 and in common stock, $1,250,000. You cannot buy a dollar of the common stock on the market unless you buy some of the preferred stock or bonds as well. If you buy the preferred stock they will give you a bonus of common stock and allow you to buy a further proportion of common stock but they will not sell one [DOT]dollar's worth of common stock to a man who is not prepared to buy the preferred stock as well, showing that they expect, although they have capitalized at almost twice the capital of the companies that formed the merger, that the common stock will become very valuable. Will any one say that that has not had an effect on the price of meats? Any one in Ottawa will tell you what has taken i-uace in the last few months in reference to the cost of meat and other products controlled by these men.
These are the men from whom the commission will get information; they will give any information they please to the minister and the minister will give any information he pleases to the House. If the leader of ihe government had been as ready to carry out other promises he made prior to the election, his course would have been much better received throughout Canada because in all parts of the Dominion you have consumers, but you have not always manufacturers. My bon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) pointed out that, the manufacturers had put their money into these concerns. Will any one say that the farmer has not put his money into his business, and for every dollar engaged in manufacturing interests, how many hundreds are engaged in agriculture? I am not prepared to say what the proportion is, but I know there is a great deal more invested in agricultural pursuits than in manufacturing.


Richard Blain: My point was that we should have protected the farmer as well.


John Gillanders Turriff: But the manufacturer is asking for this commission and he gets it, and the farmer has asked to have the protection taken off and he cannot get it.


Richard Blain: When?


John Gillanders Turriff: They asked for free trade in natural products of the farm.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


John Gillanders Turriff: 


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, take the requests made by all agricultural societies throughout the Dominion of Canada, and they are practically all on the lines of getting free trade in natural products. Take the request made by all agricultural societies throughout the Dominion, and they are all practically in favour of free trade in natural products.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


John Gillanders Turriff: Well, the great majority of them anyway.


Herbert Brown Ames: Paid agitators.


John Gillanders Turriff: If my hon. friend (Mr. Ames) chooses to call the 700 or 800 farmers who appeared in this Commons chamber a year or two ago paid agitators, he may do so and let him take their judgment on what he says. They were not paid agitators-not one quarter of, or one tenth as much as the men the Manufacturers' Association sent around to get their ideas put into force. The manufacturers are the men who have the money to hire agitators.


Mr. STEVENS.: Did not that large delegation of representative farmers ask the late government to remove the duty on agricultural implements, and did the late government do it?


John Gillanders Turriff: They asked to have the duty taken off agricultural implements and they also asked to have reciprocity in farm products with the United States, also to have the British preference increased and a general reduction in the duties. Is my hon. friend, who interrupted me, prepared to give them what they ask?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the late government acquiesce in their request for a reduction or abolition of the duties on farm implements?


John Gillanders Turriff: The farmers did ask foi a reduction on agricultural implements, and my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) who was then leading the government introduced a measure reducing the duty on agricultural implements but it was defeated by hon. gentlemen opposite.


An hon. MEMBER.: How much?


John Gillanders Turriff: It was in my judgment not sufficient but more than the farmers are likely to get from the present government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it not true that the late government reduced the duty 24 per cent? And is it not also true that official valuation of binders coming to this country prior to that was $80 each ard that subsequently that was raised to $100, so

293S
that the farmer paid more duty than he did before?


John Gillanders Turriff: My hon. friend from Vancouver shows that he does not know much about farming and agricultural implements. In the one case he is speaking about the duty on a six foot binder and in the other on an tight foot binder. The resolution before the House is not in the interests of the farmer and as a representative of the agricultural interests I am opposed to it.


George William Fowler: I have been somewhat amused, in common with other members, at the lectures we have been receiving from the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff). He has produced no facts on which to ground his arguments. He has dealt entirely with suspicions and inuendoes in which he has considerable experience, and in this connection he reminds me of what took place some years ago when he was an official of the then government of the day. At that time he had something to do with the opening of tenders, and on a certain occasion-I cite this to show the suspicion which certain persons who were tenderers entertained of the good faith of the hon. gentleman- a certain gentleman from Simcoe, or some part of Ontario, who had submitted a tender for certain timber lands insisted, so strongly did he suspect the good faith of the hon. gentleman, on being present when the tenders were opened. This hon. gentleman, who now poses as such a staunch friend of the farmers, reminds me of a certain individual who for many years bad been engaged in the liquor traffic and had made a iarge fortune in selling liquor, and who, after he had acquired his fortune, became a very strong temperance advocate, but he took good care, while insisting on the necessity of prohibition, to hang on to the fortune he had acquired in the liquor traffic. The hon. gentleman reminds me very much of that temperance advocate in the state of Massachusetts.


John Gillanders Turriff: As my hon. friend has referred to me while I was an official of the Department of the Interior, I may be allowed a moment to reply. My hon. friend and others who were then in the Cabinet, were very ready to make insinuations and cast suspicions, but when an investigation was called there was not one of them who had the courage to summon me as a witness, although I was waiting at the door day after day, demanding to be called, and give evidence. If my hon. friend wishes to revive any of these old matters he is at perfect liberty to do so. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) was equally free with his insinuations. He went out to my constituency with his magic lanterns
and insinuations, and at every place where be held meetings I doubled my majority.


Herbert Brown Ames: It knocked out some of you all the same.


John Gillanders Turriff: I noticed at the next session of parliament that my hon. friend -never opened his mouth in the House, he was in such bad odour with his own party.
If the hon. gentleman wants to go over that ground again, well and good. Let .him come out again with his insinuations and his magic lantern and my majority will be still further increased. I repeat that if any man wants to make any charge against me in connection with the opening of tenders, or the handling of Crown timber lands in the northwest, or anything else in connection with my official career, I shall be most happy to meet him and prove him a falsifier and his charges as lies.


George William Fowler: If the hon. gentleman was not called as a witness before the investigation to which he has referred, it was no doubt out of kindness to him, because the committee knew the kind of evidence he was prepared to give, and did not want to hear him.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE-ADJOURNMENT.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: I had intended moving the House into Committee of Supply. There are two resolutions in the Department of Public Works, and I wish to complete the work of this department so as to open the door for another department to take up its estimates to-morrow.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think we ought to adjourn now. The time has come,
when we ought to adjourn.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: If the House is not disposed to pass these two resolutions-


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know
whether it is so disposed or not.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Monk) will remember that the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Pugsley) specially wanted the resolutions to stand as he had something to say about them. He is not here-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They stood at his request.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Yes, and naturally he would not expect that they would come up at this time of night.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I move the adjournment of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: Will we take up this same discussion to-morrow?


William Thomas White: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, February 13, 1912.