Mr. GUTHRIE.

Would the Minister of Finance kindly explain the difference between subsection 2 and subsection 4 of section 4? In one case the commission may make certain inquiries under the direction of the minister and in the other when they are authorized to do so by the Governor General in Council.

Mr. WHITE (Leeds).

Both sections are purposely broad and designed to cover matters that have not been particularly specified. Take subsection 2. It is a matter of common experience in the Department of Finance for an application to be made for the lowering or abolition of the duty with regard for instance to certain machinery on the ground that it is not manufactured in Canada and is not likely to be. That is a matter of fact which might very well be referred by the minister to the commission for a report as to the probability of that certain article being manufactured in Canada. Subsection 4 is also designedly broad in its terms. It is fpr the purpose of covering more important matters, for example the chance of increasing trade with certain other countries and the effect that certain tariffs -might have. It is purposely broad so that the commission may be utilized, under the instruction of the Governor General in Council, to report upon matters of that kind.

Mr. GUTHRIE.

I think the matter is practically all covered by subsection 1 with the various subsections. I do not see any object in giving the commission the general power in subsection 1 or giving the minister the general power in subsection 2 or giving the Governor General in Council the general power set out in subsection 4.

The minister has informed the House that this is not only to be a permanent tariff board, but, so far as it is possible to make it so, an independent tariff -board. There is no doubt that -he has secured for Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

it a reasonable degree of permanency, for under section 3 of the Bill it is provided that the -commissioners are to be appointed for a definite period of 5 years and cannot be removed except for cause. But I think that the independence of the members of the commission is challenged by every subsection of section 4. The board has no power to initiate anything, no power to take _ a single step without the special instructions of the Minister of Finance or the Governor in Council. I understood, when the Bill was first -brought in that the board, was an independent and permanent board of inquiry, and would be instituted to make, apart from any special instructions from anybody, the inquiries set out in subsection 1 of section 4. But when we come down to analyse the sections of the Bill, we find that the functions of the boiard are subject to the direction of the minister. They cannot enter upon an inquiry, they cannot make a suggestion, they cannot -do any of the things which the Bill contemplates they -should do, and which the public believe they are to do and which are made the main excuse for the introduction of the Bill. Now, I would suggest to the minister that the words in section 4, ' under the direction of the minister,' be struck out. The clause now reads:

4. In, respect o-f goods produced in or imported into Canada the commission shall, under the direction of the minister, make inquiry as to

But why limit it to the minister. Is it not just as has -been predicted in the earlier part of this discussion thiat this commission was designed by the government and tlie Finance Minister to aid its own purposes -and his own purposes in tariff matters, and is not for thie House or the public of Canada at all? Is it -not so that the whole -design and -scope of the Bill i-s to furnish the Finance Minister -and his party with, special information, in disregard- of the rights of the House and of the people in general to receive that information ? To im-y mind, the Bill would be far less objectionable if these words were eliminated as I have -suggested. Though the board must be, and I presume will be under -th-e Bill, established by the government, it should have a certain -amount of independence to be able to inquire here, there or elsewhere without any directions or instructions from the minister. If you give if that power, that freedom of action, it will -have a certain confidence, and, I think it will gain greater respect in the -country than it will otherwise achieve. Now, in passing t-o the concluding words -of subsection 1, I would suggest to the -minister that he also strike out the words ' and report to the minister.' Without such an amendment, see how this plan works out: Here is a board of commii-s-sioiners, -a permanent

and so-called independent board of commissioners who cannot make a move in gaining the information or facts which the government deems it important to know, which cannot even start an investigation without the positive direction of the minister. And when that investigation is completed, the report must be made to tire minister. The matter starts with the minister, and, so far as this clause goes, it ends with the minister. Now, if these facts are essential to he brought out, and if this information is necessary, and we want facts, we want information, the more accurate and fuller that information the better. But where do the members of this House come in; where do the people of the country come in? I am very strongly of opinion that if this commission is to report, it should report to parliament and not to the .minister. It may be beyond the power of members of this House either to get the result of the inquiry or the evidence on which the results are based if the Bill is allowed to go in its present form. It may be that a large fund of information will be available to the minister and his friends, but that surely is not the object of the Bill. It should not be the object, and if it is not, I hope the minister will consent to the elimination of these objectionable words. I ask him in all seriousness if he will consent to strike out the words in subsection 1 of section 4, ' undeT the direction of the minister,' and the concluding words of subsection 1, ' and report to the minister,' and in the latter case, replace the deleted words with ' and report to parliament.' Now, I can understand that if a commission of independent men, men properly selected-not such men as were suggested by my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) but well qualified, independent men -the information gathered by them may be of the greatest benefit to every member of this House. We on this side contend for that. We agree that the government cannot go too far in obtaining accurate and complete information on the subject set out in these subsections; but we do object to these facts being elicited by any secret process and only by special directions. We object to any limitation placed upon the power of the commission to inquire. And I think we are all interested that the report when it is made, and the evidence when it is collected, shall be available, and that the report of the commission shall be a report to the parliament of Canada instead of to the minister. I think that is a businesslike proposition. I make it sincerely, and I hope the minister will give it his serious consideration. It may be necessary, if he does not take that view of it, to move in the matter, but I hope that the suggestion may meet with his approval. I would 'like to hear from him on the subject.

Right Hon. R. L. BORDEN (Prime Minister).

I would point out to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Guthrie) that a commission of this kind, and the duties that are allotted to it, must be under the direction of some minister not so far as their methods in making the inquiry are concerned-because in making that inquiry they will be acting independently of any direction from the government-but an inquiry into a particular matter might be more urgent, more insistent in the opinion of those charged with the duties of government than some other matter. Therefore, in view of such considerations it was entirely necessary that a commission of this kind should be under the direction of some department of the government. I would like to remind the hon. gentleman that his own leader, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) yesterday told us that all this information could be better acquired by appointing statisticians in connection with one of the departments, that of Trade and Commerce, for example. It isi perfectly obvious to my hon. friend, I am sure, that, if he is in accord with the suggestion of his leader, these statisticians would be acquiring information which would be the exact equivalent of the information to be obtained by this commission. With regard to the publicity for which the hon. member is so anxious, the statistics acquired in the manner suggested by the leader of the opposition would be reported to the minister and wrould come down to parliament in the ordinary course. There is nothing more in the provisions of this section than what has been already suggested and' approved by the right hon. gentleman who leads the opposition. There is no provision in the Bill for any secrecy, 'except so far as the principle of secrecy has already been applied, by the late government and all preceding governments, with regard to the business affairs of this country. In respect of that provision, the Bill is only carrying out a well recognized principle of the- government. There is no such provision in the Bill as that which my hon. friend suggests.

Mr. GUTHRIE.

I take issue with my right hon. friend's explanation of the section, and also with his statement in regard to the position of the right hon. the leader of the opposition. It is one thing to have a statistical bureau or a statistical branch of the Department of Finance under the eye of the minister. That is the proper course, and one which in this instance should have been adopted. That is the well established British way of obtaining statistical information. ' I have heard it stated that the trade statistics of Great Britain are the most convenient and most accurate published by any country in the world. They

are collated and published under the authority of the Board of Trade, the president of which is a member of the Cabinet. Why not adopt the British system in preference to this cheap Yankee device? You could adopt that system simply by establishing, in the Department of Finance or in some other department, a bureau manned with a sufficient staff to collect all this information. In that way you would have the .doctrine of responsibility fully carried out; you would have no independent commission to pass on matters on which thte -minister or the giovennment should pass. What is now proposed is a system modelled in fact upon the United States system. You'appoint a permanent board the members of which are not clerks in any sense of the word. They are commissioners with high standing; you have exalted and dignified them, and you are preparing to pay them handsome salaries; you are giving them very wide and high powers; but these men, an independent board appointed for the purpose of acquiring information, cannot move hand or foot until the Minister of Finance beckons to them what to do; and upon getting the word from him as to how they shall proceed, there is no doubt that they will proceed in accordance with his wishes and those of the government of the day. Why not let this board have powers broad enough to enter upon an inquiry without the direction of anybody? I can understand that cases may arise where information is required speedily. Subsection 2 provides for that, and the minister can get the special information he requires. But all that is contained in subsections ' a ', 'b,' 'c,' 'd,' 'e,' ' f ' and ' g ' should be open to the commissioners, and it should be their duty to enter upon the inquiry and continue it to the end, and make the result of that inquiry public, without instructions from the minister or the government. That is what we are establishing them for, and I think it would improve the Bill very much, in the judgment of the House and the country, if they were given that free hand. They cannot do anything but inquire and report. They have no power to make recommendations or to offer any opinion. We want the information; why not give them a free hand to start in, uncontrolled by the desire of the minister to send them on this expedition or that? The more I look into this Bill the more I realize the almost impossibility of obtaining the information which the government and the House would desire to obtain with regard to facts and conditions as they exist in Canada or elsewhere. Now, ' elsewhere ' is going to be the troublesome part of it. The Board of Tariff Commissioners in the United States have realized that.

They have had the greatest difficulty in foreign countries in getting satisfactory in-Mr. GUTHRIE.

formation, although the United States has a consular system in regard to trade and commercial matters superior to any of the consular systems in the world. In every country, and practically at every port, there has been located a United States consul. The duties of these officers are not so much diplomatic like those of British consular agents. They are to a large extent trade and commercial agents, and one can gain a great deal of information from a persual of the reports of the United States consular agents in Germany, France, Belgium and Holland. I had occasion to go through them two or three years ago in connection with a proposal in regard to technical education, and I found that they dealt almost wholly with trade and commercial matters. The United States consular system is well developed throughout Europe; but, for all that, according to the statement of the Chairman of the United States Tariff Board, they have found the greatest possible difficulty in acquiring accurate information as to conditions, the cost of raw material, wages, transportation and the like in European countries. The Finance Minister is going to be confronted wTith the same difficulty to a much greater extent than have the Tariff Commissioners of the United States. It may be a comparatively easy matter to send representatives to Great Britain and ascertain these facts there; it may be a comparatively easy matter to obtain fairly accurate information in this country. Greater difficulty will be experienced in the United States. There is no power to compel any one in a foreign country to give us this information, and United States manufacturers will not be the easiest men to deal with when the Canadian commissioners seek information from them. But when they go to European countries, where we have no consular agencies, and where we have few trade agencies, 1 believe the difficulties will be almost insurmountable, and the information obtained will be highly inaccurate and thoroughly unreliable. I do not consider that much information of value will be obtained from an investigation in foreign countries; but I do believe that a great deal may be obtained in Canada, in Great Britain, and possibly in the United States, which will be of benefit to us in the future in determining upon our tariff legislation. Now cannot that all be gone into by the Board of Tariff Commissioners without any direction from the minister or the government, or from any other person? It is their duty to do it, they are there for that purpose, and why not let them go ahead, without any special direction, and without limiting their report to the Minister of Finance, but giving it to the public in general?

Mr. AMES.

I think if you examine this clause 4 carefully, you will see that it proceeds from the lesser to the greater, that the first and second paragraph are more narrow, and more definite, and more specific than the 3rd and 4th paragraphs, and that the 5th paragraph really refers wholly to clause 4. Now let us see just how this works out in principle. Who is it that brings a Tariff Bill into this House, that presents the case for the revision of our tariff? It is the Minister of Finance. Clause 1 and clause 2 naturally give to the Minister of Finance the power of direction over that body of experts, that will collect for him the facts and information which he will need in order to make his draft Bill relating to the tariff, which draft Bill, I have no doubt, he submits to his colleagues which his colleagues, when satisfied with it, as a government, submit to the House. Therefore, whether we express it in the Bill or not, it will be the Finance Minister who will have the general charge and direction over that Tariff Commission, and it will be through the Finance Minister that that commission makes its report to the Cabinet and through the Cabinet to parliament. We may or may not specifically state in the Bill that it shall be under the direction and control of the Finance Minister, but whether we do that or not, that will actually be the case.

Mr. GUTHRIE.

Why not say that the commission is independent?

Mr. AMES.

Now, as to making the commission independent, I think that hon. members will see that if there is anything that will lead to confusion and general dislocation, it is that proposition made by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie). This Tariff Commission, if they are to accomplish anything, will have to take up the work in a regular and definite way, and naturally the way that they will go about it, is to take up in order such schedules in the tariff, as in the judgment of the government call for first and earliest attention. Now there is no other body but the government of the country who can take upon themselves the authority to say that the wool schedule, for instance, or the iron schedule, or the cotton schedule shall first occupy the attention "of this commission.

Mr. GUTHRIE.

That is provided for by subsection 2.

Mr. AMES.

Therefore, I say it will be necessary for the government to say to the commission, we desire that an inquiry shall first be directed upon such and such schedules, and surely through no one but the Finance Minister will these commands actually be given to the Tariff Commission, and when they prepare their report, whether it is stated so in specific words or not, it will be actually made to the Finance Minister and through the Finance Minister to the government.

Mr. GUTHRIE.

If the hon. gentleman will read subsection 2, would not that meet the very objection he is urging to my argument? That gives the Finance Minister the power, when he desires to bring in a tariff, to investigate certain things. But I want to point out this contingency: Suppose there is a demand on the part of the public to have a certain industry investigated, for instance, the shoe manufacturing industry, and the Finance Minister does not think it should be investigated. Should not the Tariff Commission of their own motion, be entitled to go into that questioh, under subsection 2?

Mr. AMES.

If anything is to be accomplished by this Tariff Commission in the way of gradually accumulating a library of facts and definite information that will serve as a basis, not only for the first tariff Bill, but for all subsequent tariff measures, they must proceed in an orderly manner. Naturally there will be but one authority to which applications for dealing with specific subjects will be made, and that is the government, and naturally there must be some special commission that will determine in the various claims which are made which claim is the most urgent and of' the most immediate importance. Somebody has to take the responsibility of saying to that commission; You will study such and such subject first, and such and such subjects next, and you will report to us from time to time as you complete your inquiries in these various categories, and then we shall determine what action to take, and as to whether that action shall be immediate or deferred. You will surely get into confusion if you sit here and say to them, Go away, start on any subject you like, take your own time, study any subject you please, and report at any time you please, and we in the meantime will go cn with cur business. This government will have to decide on what subjects they consider tariff legislation is of most urgent importance. Thei'efore, they will say to that commission: Devote your energies first to such

and such a subject, and when you have dealt with that, go on with the other schedules. I think I am right in saying that in the course of two or three years every item in our tariff schedules, we may' reasonably expect, will be submitted to the consideration of this commission, they will send in probably a dozen volumes of reports in due course to the govern-ernment, and in due course these reports will reach this parliament; but the order

they will take will have to be determined by the government, and through the Finance Minister indicated to this Tariff Commission. Now clauses 1 and 2 deal with a limited, definite and narrow sphere of activity, in which the order would be determined by the Minister of Finance. Clauses 3 and 4 are much wider, they are of a general character, and in 3 and 4 the indication comes from the Governor in Council, and probably the report will be made to the Cabinet direct. Those are matters somewhat out of the routine, not a consecutive investigation of tariff schedules. Number 3, I think, relates to combines, 4 relates to trade treaties, and those, as they from time to time come before the House and require attention, will be referred to the commission only when the government think it is of sufficient imoortance to interrupt them in their regular work, and ask them to take up these special subjects from time to time as they arise.

Now, as to foreign countries, the hon. gentleman suggests that we shall be able to obtain no information in foreign countries. In the first place, let me point out that the United States is having no difficulty in getting information from a great many sources. That information can be obtained by us through consular assistance, we can get it through the assistance of the British Embassy. Further than that there is no reason why we should not avail ourselves of some of the information that has been acquired by other commissions of investigation; we will not be above taking advantage of any investigations that the American Tariff Commission have carried on abroad, which, in the opinion of our commissioners, will be of use to this government.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

The more we proceed with this Bill the more it becomes apparent that we are moving in a vicious circle. Everybody agrees that we should have information that will be of assistance to the government, as well as to the public generally, to enable them to form a correct judgment upon ' tariff matters. This is a general proposition to which nobody objects. There are two methods of obtaining this information. It was suggested from this side of the House that we might employ a statistical bureau to be attached to one of the departments, the Department of Finance or the Department of Trade and Commerce, and that this information might be collected, as it is collected in Britain, to some extent in this country, and to a larger extent in the United States.

A statistical bureau would have been under the jurisdiction and control of one of Mr. AMES.

these departments and would have done everything that is now suggested by the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). But, this idea has been set aside. They are not satisfied to have a statistical bureau. The idea has been spread, and nobody has spread it more widely or solemnly than the hon. member for St. Antoine himself that we should have a big, independent commission composed of the biggest men we can find for the task. If we are to have such an independent commission, if it has been settled by the great majority, that we shall have such a commission, and that it shall not be merely a statistical bureau under ministerial responsibility, I take it that it should be a very high toned commission and that it should be composed of the biggest men, to use the language of my hon. friend, that the country can afford. Well then, if we are to have such a commission, if it is to have the character which the hon. member for Montreal, St. Antoine, wants to give it, is he of the opinion that this commission should be under the control of the minister as any clerk might be? That is what he wants it to be. He wants these big men, the biggest men the country can supply, to be placed under the jurisdiction and control of the minister, to obey his commands, as they might be given to any clerk in the Department of Finance, or in the Department of Trade and Commerce. I would have been satisfied to have had the work done by clerks as it is done elsewhere, but that is not the idea of the hon. member for St. Antoine. He has combated that idea, he wants the biggest men the country can afford to come here at $7,000 a year, and be under the control of the minister as any clerk might be. The idea which has been suggested by my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Guthrie) is that if we are to have such a commission, it should be an independent commission, to undertake this work and that the commands should go to the commission not from a minister but from parliament, itself, to do the work which it is suggested to do. It has to do what?-To collect information which would be reported to parliament, available to everybody, to the minister, of course, primarily, I admit, but to everybody else, also. The commission would -do that work and at the end of the year we would have a volume giving us all the information that it had collected. The command goes to the commission to do what?- to collect information regarding:

(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;

(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;

(g) generally, all the conditions affecting production, manufacture, cost and price in Canada as compared with other countries.

If the character of this commission is to be maintained, as we conceive it should be, since we have discarded the other method which I mentioned a moment ago, I think the commission should not be subjected to the control of the minister or of the Governor in Council, but of parliament alone. It must collect that information, put it in book form, and report to parliament.

Mr. AIKINS.

Assuming that the government wishes to formulate a policy when parliament is not sitting, and that the information has already been collected by the board, to whom should the board report in order that the government might formulate its policy?

Sir WILFRID LAUR1ER. The commission will report to parliament, the government will formulate its policy upon it, and I shall have, like anybody else, as a member of parliament, the right to criticise the action taken by the government. What I contend is, that if you are to depart from the principle which has been adopted elsewhere, of having information of this character collected under ministerial responsibility by a statistical bureau, then the commission must be under the direct control of parliament. It should not be possible for the government to interfere with its work. If the government, as was suggested a moment ago by the hon. member for St. Antoine, wanted to have some particular information upon some point, the minister, under section 2, could say: I

. want a special report upon this or that point. If somebody comes to parliament and asks to have some matter investigated if somebody comes, as was suggested by the minister a moment ago, and asks for a duty upon such an article, or the removal of the duty upon another article, and it becomes a question whether or not that article is manufactured in Canada, the minister may refer the matter to the commission, and get the information in that way. If the Governor in Council wants to have some information upon some other matter, then again, he can apply to the commission. What I suggest to my hon. friends is, that if they want to be consistent in this matter, and if we are to have all we expect to have from this commission and the work that is intended to be done

by it, and which is enumerated in clause 4, the commission should not be subject to interference by the minister. The commission should be primarily responsible to parliament. I repeat that this does not prevent the minister or the Governor-in-Council, if they want to have special information upon any matter, from applying to the commission, and securing that information, but I feel very strongly that if we are to have this commission as it is intended, and as we always understood it to be, an independent commission, it should not be liable to be controlled by the-I will not say caprice,-but by the authority of the minister. It should be under the control of parliament and of (parliament alone, primarily. My hon. friend to use his own words, states that this commission should be composed of the biggest men the country can give us. Does he believe that, if we have a commission composed of the most eminent business men of the city of Montreal, they will be satisfied to be treated as clerks, under the Department of Finance or the Department of Trade and Commerce? Is it not better, if we are to have the benefit of their business ability, training and knowledge, that they should go on untrammelled and prepare for the next session of parliament a report on these important subjects which are enumerated in section 4?

Mr. WHITE (Leeds).

My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has returned to the question of whether it is advisable to have a bureau or a Tariff Commission. One would think that the idea of a Tariff Commission had never come to the mind of my right hon. friend before. I desire to call the attention of the House to the report of a speech which my right hon. friend delivered in the City of Montreal in October, 1908, on which occasion Ire was the honoured guest of the Canadian Manufacturers' (Association, about, which we have heard so much during the last two days. I intend to read some extracts from what he is reported to have said. Discussing the woollen tariff he said:

As you know-you have referred to it, it has been part of your debates-you approached the government during the last session to have an increase in the woollen duties, and I will preface whatever remarks I may have to offer now by the fact that I was not a member of the Tariff Commission which prepared the tariff which was adopted in 1907.

That was a commission or committee of ministers.

The members of the commission were my colleagues, Mr. Fielding, the Minister of Finance, Sir Richard Cartwright, the Minister of Trade and Commerce, Mr. Paterson, the Minister of Customs and Mr. Brodeur, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

When they brought in their report, and when they embodied it in the form of the

Act of 1907, I think it was pretty generally accepted at that "time that they had reached about a happy medium, and taking it all in all, that the tariff was fairly satisfactory. But it so happened that in the course of a few months, the woollen industry, which it must be admitted has not been flourishing very much for the last few years, became embarrassed and was brought into very serious difficulties. Then we were approached to make some concessions to increase the duties.

I understood the right hon. gentleman to say yesterday that he was a free trader, or that he believed in tariff for revenue only, and if I am under a wrong impression as to that I would like to be corrected now. Well, at this time, the right hon. gentleman had been asked to consider the question of the tariff duties with regard to the woollen schedule, and he said to his audience further on in his speech:

Why is it that you cannot produce what is produced hy the British manufacturer? Well, Sir, if it be that the conscience of the Canadian manufacturer is too severe, that they will give only pure wool and nothing else, I say that is not business. I tell you I am not a business man, but the first rule of the business man is to give to his customer what lie wants to buy. And if that be true, why is it that you do not give him that cloth which he wants to buy? That is the reason and it seems to me to be a very strong argument. This was the answer which was given to me upon the very anxious inquiries which I made -the answer that was given to me was this -the British manufacturer can produce the cheap article of cloth from East India wool and from cheap waste which he gets at a price which the Canadian manufacturer cannot have. Well, Sir, that is a satisfactory answer, so far as I am concerned.

I am sorry my hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) is not here; yesterday he said the end of production was consumption and I set out that doctrine of the hon. member for Red Deer against the statement- of the right hon. the leader of the opposition when he says that, so far as he is concerned, the answer is satisfactory : v

If it he true that the Canadian consumer wants that cloth, if it he true that the British manufacturer can have the raw material of that cloth cheaper than the Canadian manufacturer can have it in Canada, that is a condition of things which is in itself one to be considered, and which cannot be overlooked.

Why cannot it be overlooked; what is wrong about the British manufacturer obtaining this raw material more cheaply than the Canadian manufacturer; if there is anything in the theory advanced yesterday by my right hon. friend, where is he concerned in the cost of the raw material to the British manufacturer? I say that this statement here does not square with the policy laid down by the right hon.

Mr. WHITE (Leeds).

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Please read again what I said before that.

Mr. WHITE (Leeds).

This is what my right hon. friend said:

There was a remedy at hand and that remedy was to send to England and to Germany a commission not of politicians, a commission not of party heelers, but a commission of good substantial business men.

[DOT]2953

My right hon. friend says ' hear, hear,' but let me ask him who was to appoint that commission? Why, of course the government would appoint that commission, and the arguments advanced here a3 to the kind of commission this government might appoint would apply equally to the kind of men my right hon. friend would appoint on his commission. Let us see what my right hon. gentleman says with regard to that:

Why, sir, I subscribe to that with both my bands.

There is nothing qualified about that; he has both hands up for it; he has both hands up for a commision of business men to investigate and report, so that his government, upon the report made by them may take such action as is necessary in connection with the tariff. And remember, these remarks of the right hon. gentleman are in reference to only one schedule of the tariff, and if the principle is correct with regard to one schedule, why not in connection with two schedules, or ten schedules, or twenty schedules for that: matter. Where is the difference in principle? Why there is no difference in principle at all. No hon. gentleman opposite would, I am sure, contend for a moment that there is any difference in the principle of the thing; it is only a question of what number of inquiries shall be -made by the commission. The right hon. gentleman says further:

Why, sir, I subscribe to that with both my bands if there is a case made out for investigation; but I have to say to my friend who has made tlie suggestion, that this very idea the Canadian government has already adopted. The last time that we received this delegation at Ottawa, some time in the mouth of July

That- refers to a delegation about this very matter of customs duties, and, as 1 indicated in my speed), delegations- and petitions come to the Minister of Finance from time to time on matters of tariff, and the first question that comes up is: what are the facts. The right lion, gentleman continues:

-in the conversation I had with my friend the Minister of Customs, when I told him that we must do something, or look into this case and see whether or not something should he or should not be done, he suggested himself that we should send at once a commissioner to England

In other words, the quest for facts that I have been talking about.

-he suggested at once that we should send a commissioner to England; not a. party heeler

The right lion, gentleman _is evidently afraid that in some way they might succeed in getting a party heeler on his commission.

t