Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark).: In the absence of Mr. Belcourt, I would move seconded by Mr. LaRiviere :
That Bill (No. 107) respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal be now read a first time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I beg to move seconded by Mr. Davis :
That the petition of the Right Rev. Tekon for an Act of incorporation under the name of the Bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church be referred back to the Select Committee on Standing Orders for further consideration.


Mr.  A. A. C.@: LaRIVIERE (Provencher). I wish the bon. gentleman to explain the object of this motion.


Frank Oliver: Tbe purpose of the motion is to secure further consideration by the Committee on Standing Orders of an application for incorporation made by the bishop of the Orthodox Greek Church, so as to enable church property to be held in the name of the bishop as incorporator. The Standing Orders Committee found on examining the advertisements which were required to be published in both English and French, that the word ' Bishop ' which was used in the English advertisement in the ' Canada Gazette ' was translated ' Diocese ' in the French. For this reason I understand the committee took the ground that the advertisements were irregular, and that they were justified in rejecting the Bill. 1 am not complaining of the action of the committee, for no doubt it was within the letter of the law, but the Bill having been placed in my charge I think it is only fair to point out that the parties interested have spent a very considerable sum of money on the extensive advertising required, and that although the committee possibly was right in throwing out the' Bill on this technicality, yet the applicants were entirely within the spirit of the law. They had complied fully with every requirement as to advertising so that all parties interested had full notice of the application. There was no mistake as to the application itself, and it seems to me that it would be fair for the House to consider the matter in its broader light and, not throw out the application, thus rendering useless the large expenditure which has been made by the applicants, because of what was merely a mistake of translation, and which has no bearing whatever on the real purpose of the application.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. There can be no objection at all to the Incorporation of the Greek Church in Canada, and, I for one, look at this question in its broadest aspect. At the same time I contend that these things must be done regularly, and according to the rules of parliament. The committee has thrown out the petition in this case because the rules of the House had not been complied with in regard to advertising. But there are other reasons than that, which the committee did not go Into.


John Graham Haggart: I shall cite one reason which in my estimation is fatal to this application. Here is a person living in San Francisco and claiming to be the bishop of the Greek Church of British North America, applying as the sole incorporator. In the first place he is a foreigner, and in the second place he does not live in this country, and according to May and all the authorities, no foreigner has the right to petition this House if he is not living in this country. That was not considered by the committee because the House had, through error in the first instance, received a petition which should not have been received. If I take an interest in this question it is because there are quite a large number of these Greek Church people in my own riding and I am satisfied, in fact I know that none of them have been apprised of what has been going on; none of them know what the so-called bishop in San Francisco is asking from this parliament. But, Sir, I look on this question from a broader standpoint, and I find that in the State of New York


Frank Oliver: Would the hon. member (Mr. LaRivi&re) pardon me if I ask him a question? Is he aware, whether the Galicians or Russians in his constituency do or do not belong to the Greek Orthodox Chui-ch, because if they do not belong to the Orthodox Church, the bishop does not claim any jurisdiction over them ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. There are a large number of Galicians in my riding belonging to the so-called Orthodox Greek Church. Others belong to the Ruthenian, and others to the Latin Rite Church, both of which are branches of the Roman Catholic Church. But I speak with regard to the Greek Church Galicians of whom some reside in my riding and some in my hon. friend's riding ; and I say that the Greek Church, which is now seeking to be incorporated, is a government church, that is to say, the official church of Russia. In the state of New York, where that Church is incorporated, it is incorporated only upon the application of the Plenipotentiary Minister of Russia. He is the person incorporated, because the bishop and other officials of the Greek Church are appointed by the government of Russia. Therefore there is more than the incorporation of this bishop involved in this question. There is the fact that we are asked to incorporate the whole Church, which is a State Church in Russia.


Mr. FRASER.: Will the hon. gentleman answer a question ? That may be all very good when the Bill comes before us, but does he think that is a reason against granting the application now being made, which is that it may come before us ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I say that incidentally these other questions may be discussed;

but jnore than that, the committee has found that the rules of this House have not been complied with, and upon that finding the petition has been set aside ; and I think it would be just as well for us to wait a little longer and study this question before passing prematurely an Act of parliament to incorporate a church which is under the control of the government of Russia. Another year is not long to wait, and then the proper notices can be given ; because we do not know this bishop from San Francisco.


The MINISTER OP INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: My hon. friend, by forcing the course which he appears to have forced in the Committee on Standing Orders, is preventing this House getting any opportunity whatever of studying the question. I do not suppose that my hon. friend thinks we should take the statement of a member of the Standing Orders Committee as to the merits of a Bill. If the Standing Orders Committee constituted themselves a committee for the purpose of deciding on the merits of legislation, and sought some technical ground to prevent legislation coming before the House, it would be very difficult for this House to get any legislation of that kind before it. According to the statement of my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver), the Standing Orders Committee, no doubt in the strict exercise of their powers- I am not questioning that-have seen fit to throw out an application for incorporation on the ground that while the English notice was quite correct in form, the French notice had the word ' diocese ' instead of ' bishop.' I submit that the reason and common sense of this House will not sustain that position. If the Standing Orders Committee took a position of that kind in regard to all the legislation that came before it, it would be impossible for this House to do business. I know nothing about the Bill ; I never heard of it until the hon. member for Alberta stood up a moment ago ; but I think the hon. member for Alberta should have an opportunity of going before the committee


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Might I ask the hon. gentleman if the report shows the ground for the committee's action ?


Mr. FLINT.: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to read the report, as chairman of the committee, I will make that clear. The report is :
That while the notices have been published for the full time required, they are irregular in other respects.
While on my feet, I may be allowed to remark that the irregularity was the one mentioned by the Minister of the Interior ; and another point that came up was that although it was not denied that the advertisement had been published, there was not before the committee a copy of the paper in which it was published. The promoter of
the Bill stated to the committee that he could produce the evidence later, and the petition was thrown out with the hint that if he could produce the evidence later, the House, would send the Bill back to the committee.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: That is what my hon. friend from Alberta asks to be done, and surely this House is not going to prevent any person who applies for legislation and has spent the necessary amount of money for the purpose, from getting his right because the promoter of the Bill did not have a copy of the newspaper when the committee met. I think I am within the common sense and reason of both sides of the House when I say that the committee should at least reconsider the matter, and later on, if there is anything in the objections of the hon. member for Pro-vencher, the House will have an opportunity to consider them.


Mr. MACLEAN.: Does not the whole question rest on the mistranslation of a word ? Two or three letters are dropped out, so as to make ' diocesan,' which is often used for bishop, read ' diocese ' ; and I think the contention is well made that because of a mere formality of that kind, the Bill ought not to be prevented from reaching the House. These are growing times, and if there is anything we want in this country, it is more bishops. If we have not one from Russia, let us get one. Let us have free trade in bishops-I think that is the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite-and the more of them the merrier.


Mr. SPROULE.: I think that is not the question before the House at all. I think it is the regularity or irregularity of a petition. If this House is petitioned by a foreigner, who is neither a British subject nor a resident of the country, I do not see how this House can receive the petition, or send it to the Standing Orders Committee.


Mr. DAVIS.: That question, according to the hon. member for Provencher, never came up at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The House is the only place to deal with it.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The rule which we have invariably followed, as far as practicable, in every case has been to sustain the report of the committee, unless a very strong case be shown to the contrary. If I understand the report, the petition was rejected because of a certain irregularity in the notice. The report is as follows :
Your committee have also considered the petition of the Right Reverend Tikhon, for an Act of incorporation under the name of the Bishop of the Orthodox Russo-Greek Catholic Church, and find that while the notices have been published for the full time required, they are irregular in other respects.

I regret that the report did not say what was the precise irregularity ; but I apprehend that it is not the fault of the promoter of the Bill if the report is not as full as it might have been. I understand-and there is no controversy on this point-that the only irregularity on which the Bill was rejected was that the word ' bishop ' was translated by the word ' diocese ' instead of the French word ' eveque.' This is the statement made by my hon. friend from Alberta (Mr. Oliver). But that was not the only objection. Though the notices were published the full time in the territories, they were only published a week in Manitoba. That is shown by the declaration of the promoter of the Bill. At all events the committee considered the notice as sufficient, because they say so in their report. But it appears the committee found there was an irregularity in the translation. The word ' bishop ' being translated ' diocese.' If that be so, the promoters should not be punished for a mistake for which they were not responsible ; and if that be the only point of objection, the committee, it seems to me took an extreme view. Without going into a consideration of the point adduced by my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. LaRivi&re) that this bishop is a foreigner, I may say that that is a question, not for the committee, but for the House, and therefore I am disposed to support the motion of the hon. member for Alberta.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You do nothing about the petition although it was presented to the House and read.


The PRIME MINISTER.: When the House has received a petition which it should not have received, that is a waver of any objection.


Robert Laird Borden: The irregularity does not seem very serious, but at the same time I would like to remind my right hon. friend that if the rules laid down by him on several occasions were carried out, this report should not be sent back because it does not show on its face the exact grounds on which the Bill was not reported.


The PRIME MINISTER.: In the Public Accounts Committee, to which my hon. friend refers, the minority framed a report on which they wanted the opinion of the House. But the promoter of a private Bill has no standing in a committee and no voice in framing its report.


Robert Laird Borden: But there is usually some one present representing the promoter, who could have had a minority report made, just as one might have been made in the Public Accounts Committee, and if the rule which the right hon. gentleman laid down were carried out in this case, the report should not be sent back. I also agree with my hon. friend from Provencher (Mr. La Riviere) that


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: this is a case in which the greatest possible care should be taken to see that the notices were properly published. It relates to a subject on which people are more or less sensitive. At the same time, if the defect is only what has been mentioned by my hon. friend from Alberta, it does not seem very serious, and I would be rather inclined to agree that the report be sent back to the committee, ana if there be any difficulty about the petition, that can be dealt with when the Bill comes before the House later.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved,
That from this date to the end of the session Government Orders have precedence on Wednesdays, immediately after Questions to be put by Members.
Robert Laird Borden: I understand that there is some arrangement for taking up the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) to-morrow and this motion will prevent that being done.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I am not aware of any such arrangement, but it may have been made between the whips. However, I think we might very well give this Bill precedence next Monday.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: Several members on both sides have asked me not to bring it up on Monday as some of them, who take great interest in the measure, cannot then be here. That is why we arranged with the government whip that it should be taken up to-morrow, not expecting this motion. Why not let the taking of Wednesdays by the government begin a week from to-morrow.


William Findlay Maclean: Why should the government ask to take Wednesdays at all. They have not brought down any measure of public importance this session, whereas there are some very important public Bills introduced by private members, and some consideration should be given us. Outside the supplies I do not see any government proposal of any kind whatever on the Order paper. On the other hand, there is a number of important Bills on Public Bills and Orders, and we should have a couple of days to discuss them. I have one of some importance that I intend to have discussed.


The PRIME MINISTER.: My hon. friend had a good opportunity yesterday if he had been in the House. I do not think he should treat with such levity the measure of the government. We are asking the House to vote some $40,000,000, which is somewhat important.


William Findlay Maclean: That is the question.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I should have thought that my hon. friend in his anxiety to vote that money and go home, would have been prepared to support the motion to' take to-morrow and make it a government day. If Monday is convenient, it will be easy to arrange to have the Bill of my hon. friend from Lincoln taken up on that day.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As far as I am personally concerned, it would suit me, but I am expressing the views of gentlemen on both sides. The Bill which I am promoting is in no sense a party question, and gentlemen on both sides, who take great interest in it, have urged me not to bring it up on Monday. It will also not come up in the same order ou Monday as on Wednesday. On Wednesday it will be sure to be reached after private Bills after eight o'clock, but on Monday the House might adjourn at 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock without discussing this Bill at all. Motions have to give way on Wednesday after six o'clock and, in the ordinary course my Bill would come up on Wednesday evening. It was on taking that into account that we made an arrangement which we thought would be suitable and satisfactory to everybody and which we would never have made had we supposed the government would take this Wednesday, and repudiate the whip's agreement.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W.
S.	Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
['I will be very glad to. Perhaps it would be convenient for the hon. gentleman to discuss that on the quarantine item.\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 2.05 a.m., Wednesday,', 'Wednesday, April 16, 1902.']
Mr. JAMES J.: HUGHES (King's, P.E.I.) Before that motion is carried, I desire to call the attention of the government, the House and the country to the intolerable condition of things that exists in relation to the telegraphic communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. I had intended to bring this subject up on the third reading of the Bill of the Minister of Justice dealing with telegraphs and telephones, but as it has been decided to leave that Bill over until next year, I am obliged to bring it up in this way and now. I have said, Mr. Speaker, that the position is intolerable ; and I think I have only to mention the bald facts of the case to have every hon. member in this House agree with me that that language is not one whit too strong.
The Anglo-American Company, which has its head office in London, is the only telegraph company doing business in Prince Edward Island, and is the only company that has a cable connecting the island with the mainland. That company closes its offices on Prince Edward Island at eight o'clock in SO
the afternoon, and does not open them again until eight or nine o'clock on the following day. That is a very great hardship not only to the people of Prince Edward Island but to all others who may have to do business with them. It was found to be a very great hardship during the early stages of the South African war when, no matter how important the message might be coming to Sackville, N.B., only a short distance away, if it came after eight o'clock in the afternoon It did not reach the island until after eight o'clock the following morning. Even with so many relatives and friends of young men engaged in that war anxious for news concerning them and with all the people desirous of learning the progress of events, yet, no matter how important these messages might be, they could not reach the island until the following day; they would not be printed in the morning-papers and so would not reach the country until twenty-four hours after the news had reached Sackville. This is the age of progress, this is the twentieth century. Yet to-day we have one whole province of this Dominion entirely shut off! from telegraphic communications with the outside world for twelve hours out of the twenty-four.	'
But that is not the whole trouble. We on the Island are obliged to pay twice as high for messages as those on the mainland. This is a serious drawback to business men in Prince Edward Island and also to those who wish to do business with Prince Edward Island. I have here a letter from a business firm in Charlottetown, which refers to this point:
We find that our telegraph bill for November was $106.44, and if our rates were the same as on the mainland, we could get the work done for about one-half the amount, which would be a very material saving. But this does not, by any means measure our loss. You can quite understand that our customers, say at Sydney, would not think of wiring us for supplies as it would cost them twice as much to get information as to prices, &c., from Charlottetown as from Halifax or St. John. This is where the real loss comes in. Business that we should get passes us every day owing to the extra expense in wiring. In buying and selling goods, at least two or three messages must pass between the buyer and seller. First, an inquiry as to price, second an offer, third a counteroffer, and Anally a telegram to close the transaction. So it will be easily seen that the excessive telegraph rates become a serious tax on our business, and drive business away from us as well.
But even that is not the whole matter. This cable was laid many years ago, at a time when the making and laying of cables was not as well understood as it is now. I understand that that cable never was very strong, and it is liable to break at any time and leave us without telegraphic communication altogether. As a matter of fact, it did part last fall and was not repaired for about three weeks. If it should break during the late



autumn it could not be repaired until the following summer. But, even while the cable was broken, if any person went to the Anglo-American Company to send a message across the Straits to have it repeated to some point on the mainland, though the sending of it cost the company only two cents, and the answer might not come for several days, yet they charged the old rates that they were charging when they sent the messages across on the cable. Many tourists come to Prince Edward Island, especially from the United States, and they are simply astonished to find that they cannot communicate with their friends for twelve hours out of the twenty-four. And we as a people are humiliated that such a state of things should exist throughout a whole province of this Dominion. As I say, this is a matter that affects all the maritime provinces and all Canada, and I am glad to find that the people of Canada generally do not take a narrow view of the question. Let me read a resolution passed by the Maritime Board of Trade on this matter.
I believe that this resolution was sent to the government:
A subject brought to the attention of this Board is ' improved telegraphic communication .between Prince Edward Island and the mainland.' The facts of the case are, we believe, well understood by the government, and especially, by one member, Sir L. H. Davies. As briefly put before the board at its last meeting, they are substantially these, that :
' Telegrams could only be sent to and from the Island between nine a.m. and one p.m. and between two and eight p.m. The Anglo-American Company, though it has only one hundred miles of wire, controls the situation. A telegram to Boston costs $1-50 cents to Sackville, and 50 cents to Boston. Pressure should be brought to bear upon the company, whose head office is in London, to secure a better service. They get a subsidy of $2,000 a year. The island papers cannot get the press dispatches at night. There would not be so much objection to slightly higher rates than those on the mainland if it were possible to get messages and press dispatches through at any,time, or at least up to midnight. There are two steamers now every week from Boston to Charlottetown with crowds of tourists who stand amazed that they cannot send a message home, between eight p.m. and nine a.m.
We earnestly hope that this will receive that careful attention which its merits most certainly demand.
(Signed) M. G. DeWOLPE, President.



[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
The Maritime Board of Trade brought this matter up last summer again, and here is a memorandum I have received from them :
Copies of resolution passed at the annual meeting of the Maritime Board of Trade, held at Chatham, N.B., on the 21st and 22nd days of August, 1901 :
Resolved, that this board again urge on the federal government the prompt improving of the [DOT]
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.)
telegraph connection between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, the necessities of which have already been fully set forth to the government.
I find that the people even as far west as Toronto take an interest in this discussion. The following is from the ' Railway and Shipping World ' :
Prince Edward Island Telegraph Service.
In referring a short time since to the complaints about this service, we pointed out that there are two sides to the question, that the Anglo-American Telegraph Company is not entirely to blame for the high rates for messages outside of the island, owing to the fact that these have to be handed over to other companies necessitating the charging of an extra toll, and that the telegraph business of the island is small, owing to its population being almost entirely an agricultural one. But there is no doubt that the service is inadequate and that an improvement is necessary. During a recent discussion in the House of Commons several of the island members complained very forcibly about vhe service, being supported by the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, whose home is in Char-lettetown. The Anglo-American Company has its head office for the island' in that city, yet it is closed daily at 8 p.m., and not opened until between 8 and 9 a.m., so that no messages can be transmitted during the night. As Sir Louis Davies pointed out, during the South African war, the morning paper published in Charlottetown has not been able to secure any dispatches arriving later than S p.m., and in consequence, most of the trains leaving Charlottetown in tho morning, the people outside that city always get their news 24 hours late. There is no doubt such a position of affairs is intolerable, and if the Anglo-American management values its Prince Edward Island business at all we would strongly advise it to provide a more up-to-date service by keeping its offices in Charlottetown, and possibly Sumraerside and Georgetown, open at least until midnight and to endeavour to make arrangements with the lines with which it connects in New Brunswick that through rates may be somewhat reduced. Unless the management does this another service will undoubtedly have to be provided.
Now, that is the way that parties outside of Prince Edward Island view this matter, and you can from it form some opinion of how we look upon it in the province. We have been trying for some years to get a remedy, but the company, whose head office is in London, will do nothing. About two years ago or a little less, Sir Louis Davies wrote to the company in regard to the matter, and in their reply to him they were almost offensive. When he asked for an improved service they answered that if the government or the community would undertake to bear the whole cost of the extra hours of service, and would guarantee the comapny against any diminution of their net receipts, they would consider the matter. Now, in bringing this matter to the attention of the government and of the House, I hope that something will be done quickly to remedy this state of affairs. It is my opinion, however, that no effective remedy will be found until the government talres [DOT] over the telegraph business itself.
William Findlay Maclean: 
Mr. TAYLOR.: What capital had they invested ?
Mr. HUGHES (P.E.I.) I do not know. I presume that interest was charged on the capital before they declared a net profit. I think that is the way nearly all the companies in the old country make up their profits, as they are very conservative in giving profits. As I said before, I do not think any adequate remedy will be found until the government take over the telegraph service of Canada. Now, there are six telegraph systems in Canada. If there were only one or two, the service might be very good. Now, in what condition would the post office service be if it. was operated by six companies 1 Here is what Mr. Pope, manager of the Great North Western, says in regard to that matter :
The telegraphs in Eastern Canada are owned by six separate organizations.
86i
1.	The government lines operating in Quebec and New Brunswick;
2.	The Western Union Telegraph Company in New Erunswick and1 Nova Scotia ;
3.	The Anglo American Telegraph Company in Prince Edward Island ;
4.	The Great North-western Telegraph Company in Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick;
5.	The Montreal Telegraph Company, and
6.	The Dominion Telegraph Company, operated by the Great North-western Telegraph Company.
The tariff for ten words from Ottawa to stations on government lines varies from 40 cents to 75 cents, to Western Union stations, 30 cents, to Prince Edward Island, 50 cents, to Great Ncrth Western stations, 25 cents, and the rates between the various systems run as high as $1.25.
It is proposed that the Great North-western Company operating the largest system, should acquire the lines of the Western Union Company and the Anglo-American Company, and should also operate the government system, and establish a uniform 25 cent rate over the whole territory.
This could be effected not only without actual cost to the country, but in a way that would ensure a large annual saving to the government, and would satisfy all interests concerned. The Great North-western Company now pay a rental in the shape of dividend to the Montreal and Dominion companies aggregating $238,000 per annum.
If the government would exercise the right to purchase the telegraph lines of these two companies which is given to them by chapter 132 of the consolidated statutes, paying the present market price of the companies stock, the purchase could be made for $5,000,000. The Great North-western Company would continue to operate (he lines, and would pay the government the interest on the above amount at two and a half per cent, and this charge being the first lien on the whole system, the payment would be assured.
The saving effected on the fixed charges would compensate the company for reducing the rates, and assuming the cost of operating the government lines.
The company would be restricted to a seven per cent dividend on its own capital, any earnings in excess would be used to extend the1 system, or to lower the rates.
The government, having the necessary facilities, would continue to maintain the cables in the gulf, but would be relieved from all other expenses in connection with their lines, thus saving between $20,000 and $25,000 annually on their present and prospective outlay.
The advantage of such a sweeping reduction would be felt and appreciated everywhere, but more especially in the poorer districts on which, under the present system, the high rates bear cruelly.
The actual ownership by the government of such a large portion of the telegraph system would make the acquisition of all the telegraphs an easier task, if it was ever decided to adopt F.uch a policy.
That would be another way out of the difficulty, if the government, in their wisdom could see fit to pursue it. But, I do not know whether that matter could be taken up immediately or not. As I have spoken of the government ownership of the telegraph system of the country, as this matter has been before the House on previous occasions and the various aspects of it have


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS. (Hon. 'J. I. Tarte).: I have to assure my hon. friends that the government will give their best consideration to the important point which has been raised. It is not the first time that I have heard complaints about the Anglo-American company. The hon. gentlemen who have spoken are right in saying that we have-some means of reaching them. Several members of the government will be in England in a short time and if circumstances permit, I expect to go there myself. I will try to have a short and interesting interview with these gentlemen of the Anglo-American Company. The government already possesses a pretty large system of telegraphs. I may say that it has not been built under what might be called businesslike circumstances, because we have been building telegraph lines where ordinary
2732

telegraph companies would not build them because they would not pay. The telegraph system of the government has so far been built to accommodate trade and navigation. I am just now engaged in giving attention to some considerable extensions of our lines in order to make them pay if possible, and in order at any rate to give more accommodation to the public. If the Anglo-American Company does not want to listen to reason I feel confident that we are able to bring them to book. The government system might very well be extended-it wont cost $1,000,000. Moreover, we have some wireless telegraphy, especially Mr. Marconi's system, and with Mr. Marconi we have already made some arrangements. With all these weapons in hand, I repeat that I feel confident that we can bring the Anglo-American Company to sense and reason. It is not necessary to say more. Under some circumstances action is better than any amount of speeches.


PUBLICATION OP BLUE-BOOKS.
Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: I wish to say a few words about a matter of very great importance to the House and the country. It is in reference to the subject of our blue-books. The value of official documents issued by the government has been very seriously attacked, and some hon. gentlemen have gone so far as to express their sympathy and their sorrow at discovering that gentlemen on this side of the House should place any reliance or should base any argument upon statements to be found in a certain blue-book issued by the present government. Attention was called to the fact that the examples quoted from the Year-book did not exactly bear out all the strictures that were made upon that publication. Later on, a gentleman on the other side of the House called attention to the fact that while confirmation of , certain figures cited by him could not be found in the Year-book for 1900-that being in my opinion the Year-book that was in the first place in question and under attack, because I have no doubt it was the Year-book of that year to which the gentleman on this side referred-that hon. gentleman in some subsequent remarks made by him, repelling the criticism made from this side of the House, rested his case upon the fact that he was using the Year-book, not of 1900, but the Year-book of 1S99.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am afraid the hon. member is referring to a previous debate.


Adam Carr Bell: If possible, I will endeavour to avoid doing so; but it is a little difficult, and in a sense it is a personal explanation that I am making.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: At the same time, in making a personal explanation, the hon. gentleman should be very cautious not to


Hon. Mr. TARTE.: bring in a question which has been the subject of a past debate.


Adam Carr Bell: I am not referring to a past debate. I am speaking in a very general way of statements which have been made. The Year-book of 1889 having been brought into question, I find that there is a discrepancy between the figures used in this House and those given in the copy of the Yearbook of 1889, which I have been able to put my hands upon-not very important, perhaps, but sufficiently divergent to justify a certain amount of inquiry, and to afford, I think, legitimate ground for questioning the claim for extreme accuracy, which is based on the use of these figures. Now, I do not propose to go into this matter at any length, further than to say that I cannot find confirmation for the position taken by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce, even in the Year-book of 1889.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is certainly referring to a previous debate. He is answering a matter brought up by an hon. member of this House some time ago, and that is certainly out of order.


Adam Carr Bell: I am very sorry, indeed, Mr. Speaker, if it is impossible for me to refer to this matter without violating the rules of the House, because I can assure you that I have no desire to be out of order. I am endeavouring to furnish satisfaction to a very hon. gentleman on the other side of the House, and I hope the House will pardon me in this matter.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I am sure the hon. gentleman does not desire to violate the rules of the House; but he must recognize that he is referring to a question which was the subject of a previous debate, and I am calling his attention to the fact that this is irregular.


Adam Carr Bell: In that case, Mr. Speaker, 1 shall have to abandon my purpose to throw further light on this subject. I will simply say, if permitted, that I think there was no foundation for any of the strictures addressed to myself, that a charge of stujjid-ity which was made against me with extreme good taste by an hon. gentleman .on the other side of the House, I think I could answer with satisfaction to the House, and that I think it would be impossible for the hon. gentleman to find in my speech any word which could justify his expressions. I did not charge any hon. member of this House with intentionally falsifying figures. I simply called attention in a most courteous manner to the fact that there were discrepancies, and expressed my desire that they should be explained; and 1 regret very much that I should have been treated in the harsh and unpleasant manner I was, and should have been made the subject of a charge, which, if the rules of the House permitted, I could effectively repel. Under your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I will make no further remarks.


IS, 1902 PREFERENTIAL TRADE WITH THE EMPIRE.
William Findlay Maclean: 
An hon. MEMBER.: They said they did not want it.


William Findlay Maclean: But we want something for what we have given; and why was the opportunity not taken advantage of yesterday ? I believe the cause of no action on England's part was the attitude of this government. The opportunity has been presented to this government time after time to open up negotiations leading to reciprocity of trade between the mother country and this country, and every time it has been thrown down. Let me read what has
taken place within a very few days. I am now quoting from a prominent English magazine. In the Nineteenth Century for March, there is an article dealing with Mr. Chamberlain as an empire builder. Speaking in Birmingham in January last, Mr. Chamberlain made this statement:
A new factor has entered into the politics of this country. In future you will have to take account of the opinion of your colonists. You will have to consult them.
Mr. Chamberlain made that statement in connection with the war in South Africa; and the essayist who is discussing the question says :
Those are pregnant words, and call to mind others already uttered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier :
* If you want our help, you must call us to your councils.'
Sir Wilfrid Laurier is quoted as having said to the people of Great Britain in connection with the jubliee celebration : ' If you want our help, you must call us to your councils.' In that very year a proposal was made to call Canada and the other colonies to the councils of the empire, and the right hon. gentleman did not accept it. The invitation was again given by Mr. Chamberlain in that speech in January last, and no response was made to it ; and on top of that the following despatch was sent to this country by Mr. Chamberlain-it was given out in this country on the 11th of March :
On the 23rd January, the Colonial Secretary cabled to Lord Minto as follows : ' It is proposed by His Majesty's government to take advantage of the presence of the premiers at the coronation to discuss with them1 the question of oolitieal relations between the mother country "and the colonies, Imperial defence, commercial relations of the empire and other matters of general interest.'
There was a broad invitation issued to the Prime Minister of this country and to the prime ministers of all the other colonies to discuss Imperial affairs ; and I believe that that invitation was given in view of the statement which was made yesterday, that England had at last come to the point when she must resort to protection; and if the proper answer had been given to that invitation, I believe that the budget speech of yesterday would have shown an inclination on the part of England to give us some kind of reciprocity in return for what we have given to England; but what put them off ? It was this reply of the Canadian government which His Excellency the Governor General on the 3rd of February cabled to the Colonial Secretary :
Referring to your despatch of the 27th December, my government accepts the invitation extended to the Prime Minister to attend the Coronation. .	,
The he goes on to say :
Referring to the several questions mentioned in your despatch of the 23rd February, the only one which, in the opinion of my ministers,

gives promise of useful discussion, is that of the commercial relations between the various sections of the empire. The political relations now existing between the mother country and the great self-governing colonies, and particularly Canada, is regarded by my ministers as entirely satisfactory, with the exception of a few minor details and they do not anticipate that in the varying conditions of the colonies there can be any scheme of defence applicable to all.
But, Mr. Speaker, is it not evident that it is just in connection with an Imperial scheme of defence, that a tariff can he arranged to the advantage of Canada ? If a tax were put on all foreign food products coming into the empire for the defence of the empire, that would give Canada reciprocal treatment, and it is because the right hon. the Prime Minister said he was not prepared to discuss the question of defence, that this proposal was made in the budget speech yesterday to tax grain coming from outside countries without extending any preference to Canada. This is only another instance of the carelessness of this government, and its lack of foresight in dealing with these great questions that concern the people's interests. They take credit to themselves for our good crops and prosperity. They are not entitled to credit for either, but they deserve discredit for having lost opportunity after opportunity of doing something to extend and promote the trade of this country, and especially to obtain reciprocity from the motherland in return for the preference we have given it. At the jubilee the Prime Minister threw a great opportunity away. When Mr. Chamberlain made the statement in Birmingham that England must call her colonies to her councils, no reply of an encouraging character was made from this side. And when an official invitation was given the Prime Minister to go over and discuss all the questions concerning the colonies and the mother country, lie replied that he did not intend to discuss the question of defence.
But, Sir, the defence of a nation should be its first consideration, and if we had a patriotic, far sighted and statesmanlike cabinet, that invitation to which I have referred would have been accepted in its broadest sense. Had it been so accepted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have come down and proposed to levy a tax on food products without giving a preference to Canada. This is the first time in fifty years that such a tax has been proposed in England. It lias been stated time and again that England never would give us a preference, but if we bad at the helm of state, men of foresight, that question of defence would have been coupled with England's commercial policy, and Canada would have had no difficulty in obtaining the preference we all desire. But the right hon. gentleman apparently saw no connection between the defence of Mr. MACLEAN.
the empire and its commercial policy, and lost the golden opportunity. Yesterday we had the confession made in the British House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the principle of protection is a sound one, and that protection does not mean an increase in cost to the consumer. True the statesman who said this is a Tory, but in view of the trend of events I question whether that will take from the value of the declaration in the eyes of the people. And this statesman said further that these duties never should have been abandoned, ns they were a great many years ago. Here is an opportunity which lias been, with criminal carelessness, absolutely thrown away. This is not the first time the interests of our country have suffered through the lack of statesmanship of the right hon. gentleman. As I pointed out in this House on a previous occasion, when there was first a question of the abolition of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, Lord Lansdowne declared in an official document that there should be no settlement of that difficulty until an agreement satisfactory to Canada was arrived at concerning the Alaskan Boundary dispute. That was stated in an official dispatch as the declared policy of the British government, but as far as we know the government of Canada never insisted on that position which was taken by tlie British Foreign Secretary and indorsed by the Prime Minister of England, Lord Salisbury, being strictly adhered to. A great opportunity was then lost which cannot be recovered. But I believe that if the invitation of Mr. Chamberlain, received in January last bad been fully accepted, we would have had no proposition in the budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a tax on food products without giving a preference to Canada in return for the preference which we have given the manufacturers of England. Thus three great opportunities have been lost of improving our commercial relations with the mother country, and I have no doubt that we will have a similar course followed by our Prime Minister at the coronation conference in June next. Whatever offer may be made to the colonies by tlie mother country, no doubt we will find him using some cold blooded double meaning phrase that will effectually kill it. I make this charge to-day, that in these great questions, which call for foresight and statesmanship, the government have shown itself absolutely incapable. To show the House that the view to which I have given expression is held by leading organs of public opinion in England, let me read a few lines from a recent number of the ' Saturday Review.' In the ' Saturday Review ' of the Oth of March last, I find the following editorial remarks :
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are busyorganizing new contingents for service in South Africa. The persistence of these colonies in identifying themselves with the Imperial cause

is a proof of devotion more remarkable even than their first efforts, and encourages the highest hopes that some scheme of Imperial relations more businesslike than those which now obtain may result from the Colonial Conferences to be held in London this summer. AS New Zealand has been the most enthusiastic contributor to the colonial forces in the field, so her Prime Minister, Mr. Seddon, is easily first in his eagerness to promote the cause of Imperial solidarity. His programme is comprehensive, and includes preferential tariffs, Imperial reserves, the strengthening of the Australasian squadron, and triennial meetings between leading Imperial and colonial statesmen. Mr. Seddon's attitude is what we should expect that of other colonial premiers to be, in view of the attitude of the people they represent. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's unwillingness to consider any project of Imperial defence is intelligible only on the ground that.he has misapprehended the ideas which have been advanced on the subject. We should not have been surprised if his free trade proclivities- which he has not been able to gratify in Canada as premier-were a difficulty in the way of tariff modifications, but that he should deprecate the discussion of defence is astonishing and may prove unfortunate for himself.
It lias already proved unfortunate for tlie Canadian people. Were the right lion, gentleman equal to the situation, he would have accepted that invitation in its entirety and coupled the question of Imperial defence with that of the Imperial trade policy. The ' Saturday Review ' points that he has lost his opportunity. I only hope that he may recover it in June next, but, .judging by the experience we have had in the past, there is very little prospect of his so doing. I am not going to delay the House further on this question. I have taken the earliest opportunity of bringing it up after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech of yesterday. Let me emphasize the great fact that there can be no discussion either of Imperial defence or of Imperial trade relations without the two going together. They cannot be uncoupled, ns the Prime Minister has sought to do in liis reply to the invitation sent to the government. When the government in England know that the colonies are prepared to do tlieir share in the way of Imperial defence and are ready to discuss what that share is and how it is to be given, you will find England ready to give a preference to colonial products in her markets recognizing fully the principle of protection, as against the outside world for that great principle the British government has this day accepted, and the recognition of it as an Imperial bond cannot but be an advantage to the farmers of Canada, especially those of our growing Northwest. The future of our North-west lies in two things-the home market, which we propose to keep for them, especially as against American competition; and the English market by way of preference over foreign food products. If there is any reason tliat will bring the American people to a sense of their duty and obligation, if there
is anything that will cause them to respect Great Britain and Canada and compel them to settle such questions as those of our fisheries and the Alaskan boundary, it will be a preference in the British market for Canadian products over the products of the western states of the union. The very form of the invitation sent to the premier, the commercial relations of the empire and the defence of the empire being coupled together, meant preference of some kind. And the Australian and New Zealand premiers saw it, and they are going to London to discuss both these questions of Imperial defence and Imperial trade policy. But our premier goes over, according to his own word, not to discuss the question of defence, but to discuss the question of trade relations. He cannot go with any authority or force to discuss the one without taking the other also. But, with these questions presented together, the parliament of Great Britain will at once see that the time has come when a preference must be given to the colonies. When that time comes, Canada will prosper as she has never prospered before, the empire will be bound together as it never has been before, and we shall be in a position, for the first time in our history, to eompel our neighbours to the south to treat us as they ought to treat us. These are great questions; these are far-reaching questions; these are up-to-date questions-and they are squarely before the people of this country and the jieople of the motherland. They are questions that demand consideration; they are questions calling for the highest kind of statesmanship oh the part of the government. I am sorry to say I have seen no evidence of statesmanship in the handling of them by this government up to the present time. All I have seen is that every opportunity presented to the government to lead in these matters has been neglected. But the empire must be led by the colonies. We are called colonists, and, used in its proper sense, I do. not resent the name. I claim this for the colonies-at least, so far as Canada, Australia and South Africa are concerned- that the clearest vision in regard to Imperial questions has been in the eyes of men who are called colonists. The day will come when all the people of tlie empire will see that the men who are leading in questions of Imperial policy, the men who are doing the work that is binding the empire together, are the men from tlie colonies. We have long had these views on this side of the House; unfortunately, we lost our opportunity to press them" forward. Hon. gentlemen opposite are in power, hut whenever opportunity has come to them, they have allowed it to pass by. As I have said, the only explanation I can give for that is their pro-United States leanings. ' The Senator from Quebec ' and ' the Senator from Ontario,' as they have been called in the United States, would not like to do anything to injure their friends there. But, if the gov-

eminent had accepted this invitation in its true significance and had said they were ready to discuss both Imperial defence and Imperial trade preference, I believe that this proposal of three pence per hundred pounds on wheat going into the motherland, would have been modified into a proposal of a duty on foreign food products with a preference to the colonies.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. lion. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I have to express my regret to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) that, since he thought it advisable to bring to the attention of the House so important a question as this, he did not follow the usual practice and give some notice to the government of his intention, so that we might be prepared for a discussion. But, if my hon. friend did not give us notice, perhaps it is that, after all, he was not quite sure of his own facts or of his own mind. For, having listened somewhat carefully to what he hasi said, I can hardly think that he meant exactly all he said or that he knows exactly in what position he stands. One thing is quite apparent-he wants to attack the government. And he attacks it right and left, for everything it has done and everything it has not done. The hon. gentleman has attacked us for the British preference and hasi called upon his friends to censure us because, forsooth, we have given a British preference without exacting any compensation. And, before he had gone much further, he blamed us for our pro-Americani leanings. That we gave the British xireference is because of our proAmerican leanings I imagine. That is the kind of logic that we have from the hon. gentleman; therefore, I am not surprised that he has entered somewhat unguardedly upon the discussion of a topic upon which, if he will allow me to advise, he should reflect further before he speaks again. The hon. gentleman blames us because we gave a certain answer to the British invitation sent to us, in common with the other colonies, to take part in the conference that is to take place in London next summer. What reason did he blame us for 1 What fault has he to find with the attitude we have taken ? And, since the hon. gentleman finds fault with the position we have taken and that was made known to the House six weeks ago and more, how is it he dares not put his view in the form of a motion which can be debated before the House 1 It is not enough to have rambling speeches; but, if the opposition have a policy on this question, I would expect them to frame it in a motion that can go to the world and let us know what are their views on this question. We were invited to the conference to discuss three matters. We were invited to discuss the commercial situation, the political situation, and the military situation. Our answer has gone forth to the Imperial authorities that we are ready to discuss the commercial situation. Our answer has gone Mr. MACLEAN.
forth, at the same time, that we see little advantage in discussing the political situation or the military situation.
Now has my hon. friend anything to say to that position ? We stated to the Imperial authorities that, according to our way of thinking, the relations which at present bind Canada to the mother land are satisfactory. Is my hon. friend prepared to take another course upon this question ? Does he want to have the position in any way improved that now exists between Canada and Great Britain, or between Great Britain and the self-governing colonies ? If so, let him suggest in what way our present relations can be improved; let him say what he has to offer to the people of Great Britain or to the people of Canada in the way of improving the relations that now subsist between the two countries. In our own estimation, and I believe in the estimation of the hon. gentlemen who sit on this side of the House and in the estimation of the Canadian people at large, the relations which today bind Canada to the mother land cannot be improved-at least I do not see how. Possibly there may be some way of improving the presesnt condition, if there is, I am prepared here to discuss it. But my hon. friend must remember that this is not the first time that we have had to deal with this question. In 1897 we were invited in almost identical terms to discuss certain questions between the colonies and the motherland. A conference sat in London and the question of the political relations, the Imperial relations, was discussed ; they were discussed by the representatives of the Imperial government and of the self-governing colonies, that is to say, of Canada, New Zealand, Natal, the Cape Colony, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, West Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Newfoundland, and with two exceptions, all were unanimous in the opinion that the relations then subsisting between the colonies and Great Britain were perfectly satisfactory. Nothing has taken place since 1897 which would induce me, at all events, to change my mind, or would suggest any way by which those relations might be improved. The basis upon which the British empire rests, the basis upon which it has grown, has been the local autonomy of all its constituent parts, and I do not see that anything can be done at the present time which would warrant a change in that basis in any way whatever.
Now my hon. friend takes up another question. He says we have made a great mistake in refusing also to consider the military situation, in refusing to discuss a scheme for the general defence of the empire. My hon. friend says the government have made a great mistake, that the commercial question and the military question must go together. If that is the view taken by the hon. gentleman, that commerce and

war must be considered together, it is a view from which I altogether dissent; and I challenge him or any other gentleman in this House, or outside of it, to present a scheme whereby two things so dissimilar as commerce and war can be considered together. No, Sir, I do not admit that view at all ; it would be a most suicidal policy for the Canadian people to go into any scheme of that nature. It would be the most suicidal policy that could be devised for Canada to enter into the vortex in which the nations of Europe, England included, are engaged at the present time, and which compels them to maintain great military armaments. Sir, what is the relative position of Great Britain and Canada ? Great Britain is one of the foremost nations of the world, in many ways, perhaps, the foremost nation, certainly the head of the greatest empire which exists to-day, the greatest which has existed since the Roman empire. Great Britain, by reason of her situation, has to maintain a large and permanent army. Hon. gentlemen are aware how repugnant to the British people ever was the necessity of maintaining a standing army; hon. gentlemen are aware how the British people have constantly fought against that idea, but they have been forced by events, forced by the position which the empire occupies in the world, to maintain a standing army, and to-day the principle item in the British budget is the expenses for naval and land armaments. Now my hon. friend says that Canada should follow in the same course, that we should take part in a scheme of Imperial military defence. Sir, Canada is in a different position. Canada is a nation with an immense territory, but with a sparse population of five and a third million of souls, scattered over an area 3,000 miles in extent from east to west. The principal items in the budget of Canada are what ? Public works, the development of the country, the construction of railways and harbours, the opening up of ways of transportation. This is the work to which we have to devote our energies, and I would look upon it as a crime to divert any part of that necessary expenditure to the supply of guns, cannons and military armaments generally.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Did the right hon. gentleman say any part of the expenditure ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I have no hesitation in saying that I share altogether the views which have been expressed by Sir Charles Tupper more than once, that Canada has done more for the defence of the British empire by the construction of the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, than she could have done by spending that money in military armaments. Certainly we must improve our own militia, and we have a scheme before us to-day for that purpose ; we must look after our own defences. But there is all the difference in
the world between undertaking this domestic military expenditure and embarking in such a scheme as is embraced by my hon. friend's vast conceptions. I do not share his views, and so long as my hon. friend wants to link together war and commerce, he will find me unalterably opposed to him.
I cannot agree to anything of the kind.
We are going to London simply to discuss the commercial question. That question we are prepared to consider, and it seems to me that our course has been a wise one. Great Britain, as it appears from the budget which was delivered yesterday, has entered upon a new line of taxation, I do not care whether you call it protection or not, but for the purposes of this discussion it is suffi-cent to say that England has opened up new avenues of taxation, she has gone back to the old duties on corn. It is very true that this new tax which has been imposed upon the English people is not large, I do not complain of that, I rather rejoice at it. But at all events, there is an opening, and since the British government has adopted this new line of taxation, the field is clear now for negotiations in a new direction at London next summer. What have we said in our answer to the invitation that has been given to us ? The answer we gave is, that we are ready to discuss with you the trade relations that exist between Canada and Great Britain, and between Canada and all the self-governing colonies. I do not despair that we may be able to lay down next summer in London the basis of a system which will improve the trade relations between Great Britain and her colonies and will establish freer trade between all sections of the British empire.
That is the view which I hold, that is the view which the government hold, and that is the view on which we are prepared to act and so far as he is concerned, I do not know whether it meets the views of my hon. friend or not. If it be that it does not meet his views, I am satisfied that it does meet the views of the great majority of the Canadian people. What the Canadian people are looking for at the present time, is the improvement of the trade relations which exist between the mother country and the colonies. Perhaps I am mistaken in the hope,I now express, perhaps it is premature to say it, but there is every reason to believe that we are facing the dawn of a new day, that peace is going to be at last restored to the British Empire, that this cruel war will soon be over, and if that be so, the conditions are more favourable than they ever were before for securing the improvement in our trade relations which we have in view. When we come back from Great Britain next summer it will be time enough for my hon. friend to find fault with the government if the government have not done, as he thinks, their duty. Whatever we may do, I am satisfied we would not please tiie heart of my hon. friend. I know that the better the arrangements we

can make the more displeased lie will be. But, whilst I have great admiration and sympathy and friendship for my hon. friend, he will pardon me when I say to him that it is not so much his approbation I am looking for as the approbation of the Canadian people.


Mr.  T. S. SPROTJEE@East Grey: The right lion, leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) seems to object very strongly to the wisdom of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) bringing this question up at the present time. As he could not bring it up at an earlier moment, on account* of the information contained in the papers and upon which he based his argument not being available, he is quite excusable in not having brought it up at an earlier date, but, that he does it at an opportune moment will be admitted by every right thinking man, because, it is during this time above all others that the attention not only of Canada but of the world is attracted to the very important divergence that has taken place from the old established custom of the mother country by the introduction of what may be fairly regarded as the protective system. In view of that he could not choose a better time than the present in which to let the mother country understand the strong desire of the Canadian colony' when a departure has been made from an old established principle, that her interests may be taken into account and that such provision may be made as will enure to the benefit of the colonies, if it is possible to make an arrangement of that kind. I think we are justified in believing-that had proper representations been made by the right hon. Prime Minister at the time of the last conference, that Canada desired above all other things some form of Inter-Imperial preferential trade between her and the mother country and the other colonies of the empire, England would have kept that representation in view, and in this departure, in all probability, she would have made provision for the introduction of a system of inter-imperial preferential trade. But, the right hon. Prime Minister says : I am not going to connect war and commerce. They have no connection, and 1 distinctly refuse to act upon that principle. Why, the history of the British efupire shows clearly that Great Britain has acted upon that prinicple. War and commerce are so indissolubly associated that they have never been separated. War is always the precursor of commerce, and after the resort to force, to the arbitrament of arms we have established our commercial relations with the country with which the empire was in conflict. There never will be a time in the history of England or of Canada more opportune than the present for the establishment of some new and mutually advantageous commercial relations. The time is not likely to come in the history of our country in our own life time, or per-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
haps in the life time of those who come after us, and I say that there is no time in the history of the country when it is more important to depart from the old lines and to adopt new lines to meet new conditions than when the force of war when the arbitrament of war has given the Imperial government control of the country with which she was in conflict. That is the time above all others when commercial relations ought to be improved and established upon a basis that would be mutually advantageous to the colonies and the motherland as well. I do not think the right hon. gentleman's contention that there is no connection between war and commerce is one that will be held by the people of this country. Well, there is one thing that the right hon. gentleman lias told the English people, and it is that he will not inform them how it might be possible to make an improvement in the line of commerce and defence. We have Something in common with the mother country in connection with the question of defence, as we have something in common in connection with the question of commerce. We have mutual interests all seeking a common defence. The defence of one part of the British Empire is the defence of all. If England lost her power on the high seas Canada would have no status amongst the nations of the world, and it therefore becomes a matter of importance and interest to us as it is to England to have some common system of defence. But, how can this question fit in with our interimperial preferential trade in this way: A motion was made a few years ago laying down the lines as to how it could be accomplished. It was a motion proposing that the mother country and the colonies should collect a customs duty upon imports from all foreign countries, setting a small percentage apart for the purpose of common defence. I have no doubt it would be answered, if the right hon. gentleman were to answer it by saying that we will never concede the right to give away money without the right of saying how that money shall be expended. We need not do that. Having raised the money, having obtained a customs revenue for this purpose, would it not be proper to retain the expenditure in our own hands for the purpose of establishing the nucleus of a navy, and in this way assisting the British empire ? I do not see that it would necessarily follow that because we raise money we must give it away to the Imperial government to be expended as they like. If the colonies collected such a revenue, and if the mother country imposed a tax on foreign importations what would be the result ? It would accomplish what we desire to obtain, a measure of inter-imperial preferential trade that would give us the advantage of putting our goods down on the English market over any outside competitor in the world. Take the proposition which was announced yesterday in the British House

of Commons. A duty of 5 cents a hundred weight is placed on wheat. That is 3 cents a bushel. Suppose that had been put on the foreign product and not upon wheat coming from the colonies; that would have given us 3 cents a bushel more for our wheat in England than the American would receive. and they are our greatest competitors. See what an incentive it would be to immigration and to the settlement of our great North-west, where we can raise millions of bushels of wheat to supply the British army and the British people. See what an advantage a preference of 2 cents a bushel on wheat would be to our North-west farmers. We believe that if the Prime Minister had been alive to the situation, and had pressed that phase of it as strongly as he might when he was in England before, it would now be before the Imperial parliament, and they would in all probability have given us that advantage over the Americans. It has been written :
. There is a time in the affairs of men (and nations)
Which taken at the tide, leads on to fortune.'
We believe that one of these golden opportunities passed when the Prime Minister was in England. We believe that he missed a golden opportunity to strengthen the trade relations between the mother country and the colonies. AVe believe that he lost the opportunity of accomplishing great good for Canada. But another opportunity will come a few months hence. The Prime Minister of Canada is invited to England to consider the commercial relations between the mother country and the colonies, as well as the defences of the empire. He has refused to discuss the question of Imperial defence, but in my judgment the two questions are so indissolubly united that you cannot separate them without doing injustice to one or the other. The Prime Minister is doing less than the Canadian people expects of him when he refused to discuss both questions, because the discussion of our commercial relation without the discussion of Imperial defence can only be half hearted. AVe shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter at greater length and I shall not dwell further upon it now. I could not avoid saying something on the subject, seeing that it was introduced at the earliest possible moment to the notice of this parliament, and seeing also that the Prime Minister has proceeded in the past on the line that we have given to England a preference for which we ask nothing in return. The Minister of Agriculture made the same statement in England last year. This government is always ready to give away what belongs to Canada and to ask nothing in return for it. What a contrast with the policy of the Australian colonies who are alive to this question, and who want a mutual preference. But. Sir. cold water is thrown on this intercolonial
conference by the Canadian Prime Minister in advance. If the premier colony is not prepared to go to the length of discussing Imperial defence, that conference must lose a good deal of its importance seeing that the other colonies will not be sustained or supported by Canada. It is because we think our Prime Minister is not alive to the interests of Canada at this opportune moment, that we desire to draw his attention to the importance of the question, and to impress its importance on him when he comes to discuss these matters in England.


Robert Laird Borden: I desire to say a very few words in reference to what has been said by the right hon. Prime Minister. I was not aware that this subject was to be discussed to-day, and therefore I can say very little on the main question which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean). I would however like to remind the Prime Minister, that when he expressed his complete and perfect satisfaction with the relations which exist between Canada and the motherland, he seems to have somewhat altered his mind from the opinions which he entertained in days gone by. Reference has been made during the present session to the aspirations of the right hon. gentleman in 1892, for the complete independence of this country, and within a more recent date, if the right hon. gentleman has been correctly reported in England, he has said to the Imperial government: If you want our assistance call us to your councils. I have never heard the right hon. gentleman contradict the correctness of that statement attributed to him. It has been published in the public press of this country and in the public press of the mother country many times, and it has never been contradicted. But, when a courteous invitation to come to the council of the empire is extended to the right hon. gentleman by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the response which is given to that invitation is not itself of a very courteous nature, so far as we can understand it. I do not, however, propose to discuss that at any length just now. The right hon. gentleman quotes with approval a certain statement by Sir Charles Topper in the past, and the right hon. gentleman refers to the great burdens which are imposed upon the people of the motherland.
I for one shall always maintain that so far as Canada is concerned, Canada must herself deal with the subject of contribution to Imperial defence. The parliament of Canada is the proper tribunal to deal with that, but I do not think it necessarily follows that the government of Canada should refuse as they have done, to even discuss that subject. I say that this country must deal with that subject and must control that subject, but I do not agree

with the right hon. gentleman that it is altogether out of the question to discuss it when we are invited in a courteous way to do so. We must also recollect in connection with the guns and ammunition and warlike stores and the enormous liabilities which are paid for by the British people, that these are to some extent at least for the benefit of Canada as well as the other portions of the empire. We should not altogether put that particular phase of the question out of sight. I suppose there is not one amongst us, holding even the most extreme views on this question, who would not understand that if any Canadian subject was ill-treated in any part of the world under such circumstances as would call for the intervention of Great Britain, that Canadian subject would be supported by every British gun and every British ship to the full extent of the resources of the British empire.
Some . hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, Sir, if that be the case, it perhaps affords us food for reflection in discussing a subject of this kind. It does not, it seems to me, sound very well from the mouth of the Prime Minister of this pountry, that while he speaks of that question of liability which is laid upon the people of the British Isles, he should so absolutely shrink as he seems to from even a discussion of the subject of the defences of this country as part of the British empire. The growth of constitutional government in Canada has been gradual. It has progressed in every decade for the last sixty years, and the only step backward that has been taken in connection with our responsible government has been taken under the government of the right hon. gentleman, in connection with the subject of copyright. As I understand it, this government has receded from the attitude taken by Sir John Thompson, and which, if he had lived, he would have maintained to the full. I shall always maintain that Canada should advance, so far as the right to govern herself is concerned, and I regret that after sixty years of progress in that direction, the only retrograde step has been taken by the present government.
But, what I particularly call the attention of the House to is this : We on this side liave been asking the government for the past two or three years to endeavour to secure for Canada a preference in the British markets. All parties in this House and in this country have adhered to the opinion that that preference would be of great advantage to Canada. But, Sir, the only answer that we have ever got from hon. gentlemen on the other side is, that it was so supremely ridiculous that the mother country should think of imposing a tax on food stuffs, that the very absurdity of the proposition justified the Canadian government is taking no steps whatever for the ,
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
i purpose of securing such a preference for ; our food products.
1 Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: If my right hon. friend can point to any other reason which was ever given by himself or by his colleagues to excuse the apathy of the government on this subject, I would like to hear that reason noW. I have paid pretty careful attention to the debates of this House, and I have heard nothing else. I have heard it from my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I have heard it over and over again from the Minister of Finance ; I have heard it ad nauseam from the right hon. gentleman himself and from numerous of his followers ; and now, Sir, what the country would like to know is, when it has appeared imminent that some measure of this kind was to be brought down by the Imperial government, has this government awakened from its sleep and made any representation on the subject ? I am very much surprised that my right hon. friend the leader of the government should have taken his seat to-day without informing the House and the country whether the government has or has not taken action with regard to this most important subject. He has occupied the time of the House in making certain criticisms on the speech of my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), but he has not afforded one single word of information to the House and the country as to whether this government has made the slightest representation to the mother country with a view of having the colonies exempted from this tax which is being placed on bread stuffs going into the United Kingdom. I regard that as a remarkable omission on the part of my right hon..friend. It is true, he is in a very peculiar position in respect to this subject, because he told the people of the mother country that he did not want any preference and he has got the medal of the Cobden Club on that score. If my right hon. friend should ask the mother country for exemption from this tax for Canada, it is perfectly clear that he would have to send that medal back to the Cobden Club, because from first to last the ground on which that medal was given to him was that he had told the people of the mother country that he did not want any preference-that he was a free trader. Well, some members of his cabinet have made it abundantly clear to the country that they are not free traders. Is my right hon. friend so much of a free trader that he desires to retain this Cobden medal and desires that Canada shall not have any preference in the markets of the mother country ? There is a well-defined line between what this country would like to have in this connection and what the right hon. gentleman has said in the past that this country did desire. As plain as words could make it he has told the mother country that he gave the preference without


AP&quot;RTL 15, 1902
[Stage Direction]
any desire for a corresponding preference from the mother country. He has also told us, and his followers from time to time have repeated it, that although a preference to this country might he desirable, the right hon. gentleman was perfectly justified in taking that position at the time he did, because it was utterly and absolutely hopless to suppose that any tax of this kind would be imposed on food stuffs going into the United Kingdom. Now, when it became apparent that this tax was likely to be imposed, has my hon. friend had the courage to go back on the declaration which he made at that time, and to say to the mother country, we in Canada do desire a preference in the United Kingdom ; and, as we have given you a preference, which, whether it has done you good or not, is well intended, will you give us a preference by exempting Canada at least from the operation of this duty on bread stuffs ? I venture to say that this country would be very much more interested in some declaration of that kind from the right hon. gentleman, who is the Prime Minister of this country, than a great deal of the declarations and statements he made in the House to-day. Although the right hon. gentleman has not seen fit to enlighten the House at the present time with regard to the attitude of the government on that question, I trust that he will take an early opportunity to do so. Are the government still of opinion that they do not want this preference in the markets of the mother country ? Does the right hon. gentleman adhere to that solemn declaration which he made to the mother country at that time, or does he adhere now to the view which we on this side of the House expressed last year'by a resolution which was voted down by the right hon. gentleman and his followers, that it is a good time, and the proper time, and the proper thing to do, to ask the mother country that the products of Canada at least shall be exempted from the tax which is being placed on food stuffs, and that the farmers and agriculturists of this country shall receive from the mother country a preference by being exempted from that tax. I trust that the right hon. gentleman will at a very early date enlighten the House as to what the government has done or proposed to do on this subject, and what the present attitude of the government is on a subject of such great importance to this country.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made an allusion to myself, which justifies me in offering a word or two in reply. It is unfortunate for hon. gentlemen opposite that they have never been able to found an argument on this question of preferential trade without entirely misstating the facts of the case.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh. .


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friends say oh, oh. A reference to what has
occurred in the past will be sufficient to justify my observation. A few years ago the hon. gentlemen created the delusion in their own minds, and tried to place it in the minds of others, that Her Majesty's ministers, on the occasion of the Jubilee, when the right hon. the Prime Minister of Canada visited London, indicated their willingness to give Canada a tariff preference in the British market. That statement was made over and over again, and ran through all the discussions of this question from the opposition side for a series of years, and yet every hon. gentleman knows that it was a statement absolutely unfounded in fact, that it never had any foundation. If it ever had any colour at all, It was utterly destroyed and taken out of the discussion by the letter which was addressed by the Duke of Devonshire to the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Mulock). The Duke of Devonshire was the gentleman who was said to have made that statement to the Prime Minister, and in his letter, which is now a matter of record, His Grace said that it was preposterous, that he had never made such a proposal, that he could not have made it, that he never dreamed of making it. We have been told again and again that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who delivered his budget speech yesterday, was quite prepared to give a preference for Canadian flour and wheat, and that the only reason he did not do so was that we had not asked him.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Who said that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend from East York said it all through his speech.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Practically that is what he said all through-that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was prepared to do that. The hon. gentleman does not deny it. He knows that I am making a correct statement.
Mr., MACLEAN. I did not put it that way.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He did not put it that way, but he knows that that was the substance of what he said.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I made no such statement as that. The statement I made was that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach had yesterday introduced a measure putting a duty on corn, that it was the first time that had been done in fifty years, that it was a protectionist proposition, and that that being the case, it was the opportunity of the government to protest against that tax being put upon Canada after we had given a preference to the mother country.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The hon. gentleman said most distinctly that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would have been prepared to give Canada a preference on wheat and flour but for the fact that the

Canadian government had not demanded it. That was the whole argument of my hon. friend's speech, and if it did not mean that there was no reason in his argument at all.


William Findlay Maclean: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, what I did say was that when the right hon. gentleman received the invitation which he did some two months ago, if he had replied that he was prepared to discuss a scheme of defence and our commercial relations together, I had no doubt that the budget speech introduced in the British House of Commons yesterday would have given a preference to Canadian bread stuffs.
The MINISTEIt OF FINANCE. The difference is not material. But the substance of the hon. gentleman's remarks was that because of the action of this government, the budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not put a preferential duty on wheat for the benefit of Canada. There is no man in the English government or English public life who would receive such a statement seriously. Every one who has any conception of the position taken by the ministers of state in England knows that up to this year, not one has ever declared his willingness to put a preferential duty on wheat or anything else.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did you ever ask him '!


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It would have been useless to have done so. I am speakiug of what I know, because I have had the opportunity of discussing the question with a number of public men in the mother country. And when the hon. gentleman represents that English statesmen were prepared to grant us this preference, he makes a statement which is absolutely not justified by anything that has occurred in the mother country. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition made reference to some speeches of mine. He said that over and over again he had heard me say it was absolutely ridiculous to suppose that a preferential duty or any duty on wheat would ever be imposed by England. I want to tell my hon. friend that he is mistaken. He may search through every speech I ever made in this House, and he will not find in it any such statement. On the first occasion when I was privileged to discuss the matter in the House of Commons, I said that, as matters then stood in England, it was unreasonable to expect that any duty would be put on wheat.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought that when I was quoting the resolution of the Maritime Boards of Trade in this House last year, the hon. gentleman interrupted me by saying that any such idea was perfect nonsense. I think that ' Hansard ' will show that I am right.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not happen to remember the Maritime Board Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
I
of Trade resolutions. I said that to have expected the British government in 1897, when we brought down our preferential tariff, to put a duty on wheat was at that time unreasonable and preposterous. Here we are five years later, and during all the intervening years nothing of the kind was done, but to-day you have a small duty on wheat and flour, only brought down because of the tremendous cost of one of the greatest wars in history.


William Findlay Maclean: Which shows that the tariff goes with war.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The money to pay for war has to be raised by tariffs. That happens to be the only bond of connection between the two. On that very occasion, when I had to discuss this question in parliament, not only did I not say that the thing 'was ridiculous and impossible, but I carefully guarded myself by saying again -and again that the conditions were so changing in England that I could not, nor would abler men, undertake to say that at no future date should a condition arise, under which lit would be possible. But I said we had not reached the stage yet when England was prepared to give us preference. And she is to-day only putting a duty on bread stuffs because of the war tax. Were it not for the war tax, we would have no duty on corn or flour in the British budget to-day. Therefore it is unreasonable to compare events in the time of peace with those which occur in the stress of one of the greatest wars of modern times. Not only did I not make the statement charged against me, but I took great pains to indicate that the time might come when Great Britain would be prepared to adopt a preferential policy. Hon. gentlemen will remember that I did make that point, differing in that respect from one or two on this side, who took the view that it would never be done at all. Hon. gentlemen opposite, however, always argued on what might happen in times of peace, not on what may be brought about by stress of war. It is perfectly evident that up to the present there has been no reason to believe that the Imperial government would grant the preference talked of. We agree that such a preference would be desirable from a Canadian point of view. I have said that twenty times in the House of Commons.


An hon. MEMBER.: We never heard it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman has never heard me, he has lost some valuable Information. It would be desirable from a Canadian point of view, but whether or not it would be from the point of view of the English consumer is what he has a better right to decide than this parliament. If there iis one view which I have presented again and again, and which I now present, it is this :	The point on
which we differ from hon. gentlemen op-

posite on the question of preferential trade is this. They have from the beginning insisted on our demanding of John Bull a preference and giving him nothing until he would grant it; whereas, the position we took was that we would give John Bull the preference, believing that it was good for ourselves and that ultimately it would lead Mm to take a more favourable .view.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend will find that, again and again I have given expression to that opinion, and if this movement for preferential trade has made any progress in Imperial affairs, if there is a party in any part of the empire which is advocating preferential trade, it is largely because Canada has led the way. And if at any time we should be able to bring about that, preference for the benefit of Canada and the other colonies, it will come, not as a result of the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite, who demanded that we should make huckstering terms with John Bull, but as the result of the policy adopted by this government in 1897, which undoubtedly has been a very great factor in the development of Imperial ideas in commercial affairs. Hon. gentlemen opposite nave seen fit to sneer again and again at that preference. We say that it was a good thing for Canada, and for the mother' country. These hon. gentlemen say that it has ruined our factories by admitting a lot of English goods, and then in the next breath say that it never did any good to anybody and has not increased our trade with Great Britain. But if we follow the history of the movement during the last five years, we have every reason to believe that the step taken by Canada has been the chief factor in the creation of an Imperial interest in our commercial and other affairs. I have no difficulty in proving that. Go to the mother country, go to the magazine writers, the daily press, the leading public men, go to the man on the street-aye, and to the utterances of the sovereign from the throne- and you will find all recognize the fact that this preferential trade movement in Canada has been a matter of great concern to the empire at large. And when we can point to that fact, we can afford to listen unmoved to hon. gentlemen opposite who would like to have us believe that it is a matter of no concern at all. On the question of defence, the reply of the government did not state that we would not discuss any such question. It stated that we would, as in duty bound discuss any matter brought before the conference, either by the Imperial government or any of the colonies, and that was the proper view to take. But if my hon. friends opposite think that we are not going far enough in our willingness to enter upon Imperial military expenditure, if they are of opinion that in addition to the moneys we are now spending on the military 87
forces of Canada-and in expending money on the militia of Canada, I claim that we are spending for the defence of the empire- if hon. gentlemen think that in addition, we should enter into a broader scheme of Imperial defence and pay out larger sums that we are now doing for the defence of the empire, they would do well to frame a motion of that character, and assign specially the preparation of that motion to my hon. friend, the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), because I am given to understand that when my hon. friend speaks in the province of Quebec, he is not as cordial in his desire for Imperial military expenditure as some of his friends seem to be in this House. Probably that very fact would suggest that before undertaking to commit ourselves on any of the great questions, we should take into consideration not what may commend itself to one section o'f the people or the other, but what is likely to commend itself to the good judgment of the people of Canada as a whole. That, Sir, is the view which the government have taken. We believe that on this question as on others we have given expression to the sober, sensible, thoughtful judgment of the Canadian people. And time will show that we are right.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but I would like to be permitted to say a word. One thing which I referred to-only one of many -was where the hon. gentleman was dealing with the statement of Sir Charles Tup-per that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign food stuff while admitting those of Canada free. He said :
That is an old cry of Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And so it was.


Robert Laird Borden: I also read, in the same speech which I made, the resolution of the Board of Trade advocating preferential trade within the empire, and when the hon. gentleman was Interrupting me, I said :
Why could not the hon. gentleman in the same way characterize this resolution which I have read as arrant humbug'.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So it is.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I wish to say that Sir Charles Tupper, whom the hon. gentleman quotes had been telling the people of Canada that, as a practical question of the present day, not as a thing of the future-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Sir Charles Tupper had been telling the people of Canada that he, the Conservative leader, if placed in power would be able to secure a preferential duty in favour of Canada. That



was the statement which I said was arrant humbug. And, whether it be said by Sir Cnarles Tupper or anybody else, it was arrant humbug then and it is arrant humbug to-day. In every speech that I have made on the subject-I have not made many, so the hon. gentleman can easily look them up-I have invariably said that, while a preferential duty could not reasonably be expected at the time, I distinctly declared that by the step we were taking, we were creating an Imperial sentiment which would probably bring about that result. And that Is what is happening to-day.


Mr. W. B. NOKTHRUP (East Hastings).: When the right hon. First Minister was speaking, I felt that it would be my duty to rise and defend the premier of the province of Ontario, the province from which I come. That gentleman has devoted a great deal of time and study to the very question now before the House, but seems to differ, unfortunately, from the right hon. gentleman who leads this House. But before I venture to say a word in defence of the premier of Ontario, let me take the opportunity of saying a word in defence of the right hon. gentleman who now leads the House against the attack made upon him by his follower and colleague the Minister of Finance. (Hon. Mr. Fielding). The Minister of Finance in stentorian tones anathematized anybody who would be so foolish as to demand a preferential duty from the old land. I am not aware that anybody ever did ' demand ' a preferential duty from Great Britain. But the gentlemen on this side have contended again and again that, if the hon. gentlemen opposite would conduct the business according to business methods if, instead of doing as they did with the United States when they wished to make a bargian with them, give everything they had to give and then depend upon the gratitude for a return if they have devoted themselves to the matter in the ordinary methods of business, very possibly the result which the hon. gentlemen opposite affect to desire, and which the hon. gentlemen on this side do most sincerely desire, would have been attained long ere this. The Minister of Finance went on to say that it was a most unreasonable thing for anybody to expect preferential trade away back in 1897. Surely the hon. gentleman is not a student of the modem classics or he would have known that, one of the most beautiful orations ever delivered in this or in any other land was that delivered by the premier in London, on the subject of preferential trade, in 1896. We on this side may differ from the right hon. gentleman as to methods which we think best, or wisest, or most patriotic to promote the development of this [DOT]country. But we bow to no gentleman on the other side in our admiration for the eloquence and ability with which the right hon. gentleman can present his views, such Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
as they may be at any time. In 1896, as I have said, the right hon. premier with even more than his wonted eloquence pointed out the glorious opportunity before Canada, the illimitable possibilities that opened up before us, if the people of Canada would be wise enough to reject the protectionist government which could not attain the boon of preferential trade and put in power a government led by himself and made up of gentlemen whose views of these matters were in accordance with the doctrines of free trade. For he promised to go to the old land and bring back preferential trade which would make this country blossom as the rose. Surely the Minister of Finance has failed to read that speech, or he has forgotten ; otherwise he would not have spoken of the folly and presumption of those who, so long ago as 1897, ventured to propose such a preposterous thing as preferential trade. But, when the right hon. gentleman and his followers came into power they gave us this tariff which gives a preference in our markets to the old country. For what reason they gave it, nobody on this earth can possibly tell to this day, for these hon. gentlemen themselves within the last fifteen minutes have differed as to the reason why it was given. The right hon. premier has told us and told the people of the old country- and thereby won the encomiums of the people there and, possibly won his Cobden medal as much on account of that statement as of any other-that we gave that preference as a matter of gratitude to the mother country. She had done so much for us, and we had done so little for her, that, without seeking or desiring anything, we gave this preference as evidence of our gratitude. And not only we did not expect anything but, we did not desire anything in return. Further, he pointed out most earnestly that any move in the direction of protection would be an injury to the motherland, and so would injure us, the greatest colony. So, the right hon. gentleman did not seek or ask or wish -and perforce, would not accept-a preference from the mother country. Within the last five or ten minutes, the Minister of Finance, who would be supposed to have some faint glimmering ideas as to the reason why this most extraordinary tariff was brought into existence, has told us that there were two reasons for it. One was that it would pay us and the other was that Great Britain would be more likely to give us a preference if we gave her one. Think for a moment;-the right hon. premier tells the benighted Englishmen who were out of sound of the debates in this House and ignorant as to why this tariff was given. We have given you this as a matter of gratitude and nothing else. I can understand how the welkin rang with that shout of loud acclaim that rose to the heavens from the grateful Englishmen who listened to the right hon. gentleman. But what if they had learned, these poor benighted Englishmen,

that, in deed and in truth this was one more of our usual selfish colonial modes, that we gave the preference as the Minister of finance has told us, first because it would pay us, and second that we hoped to get a preference in return ? Now, for my part, I am inclined to stand by the premier. I am inclined to think he understood what he was talking about. For the Minister of Finance, who, after four or five years operation of this tariff would venture to say, on the floor of this House, that any intelligent government passed such a tariff on the ground that it would pay us, does not understand the meaning or operation of that tariff.
And when he went on to say that he gave to Great Britain because, in the second place, he thought we would get something in return, he forgets that we have been told during this very session, and other sessions, and have been told throughout the land, that we gave this tariff to Great Britain not expecting anything under the sun in return, but that we gave this tariff to Great Britain because we owed her a debt which we were going to pay in that way ; for the premier has told us, and we have been told by many speakers on that side of the House, that we gave her that tariff because we owed her a debt of grati-* tude which we intended to pay in that way. And just see how we have paid it. We have said to Great Britain : We owe you a debt, we the people of Canada owe you a debt, but unfortunately we are hard up, money is scarce, we have spent all we had on the first two contingents and we have run short; we cannot afford to give you anything ourselves, and you could not expect a poor country like this, whose brave boys at the front have to live on emergency rations, to pay anything more. And so, as you cannot expect us to give you much in the way of cash, we will pay you by making the woollen manufacturers, the cotton manufacturers, the shirt manufacturers and some other industries in this country square the account with the Yorkshire manufacturers and workmen, so that while we, the people of Canada, cannot afford to pay our debts in cash, we have a few people in Canada from whom we will allow the English manufacturers to collect the money by coming into this market with their goods at the expense of our own manufacturers ; and then we can hold up our hands to heaven and say : Thank Heaven, that debt is paid. I am not prepared to say that the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues have not considerable ground for the line he takes that we cannot afford to pay the old country in cash for the benefits we receive from her. There were other and happier days when we could afford to pay our debts in cash. There was a time when this country was sufficiently opulent that when crimes were committed the government could afford to take all reasonable steps to follow and punish the misdoers. Under the late government that was done 874
again and again, and so determined was the late government to see that justice was done, and so overflowing was the treasury, that even when a Conservative member was accused of wrong doing the most eminent lawyer of the country and he a Reformer, was employed to see that justice was done, and finding him guilty, he was expelled from this House. But even since the hon. gentleman and his friends have come into power, when election frauds were charged in distant Manitoba, money was supplied in abundance and even advanced to private individuals in order that justice might be done and the wrong-doers punished. But since that day we have had much graver offences than those, we have had election scandal after election scandal, until to-day Canada, which once was the most honoured country in the world, I am afraid has some black spots on its escutcheon now ; yet we are so impoverished in this country that ever since the marvellous efforts that were made in 1896, whether rascalities were perpetrated in Brockville, West Huron, Montreal or elsewhere, we have not been able to see that justice was done and the fair fame of Canada vindicated. Now when we find in this way that our money has run short, perhaps we are not to blame if the hon. gentleman should suggest that we take the only means we have in our power of paying our natonal debt.
But before six o'clock is reached, let me say a word in defence of the Hon. Mr. Boss, the premier of Ontario. The right hon. premier of this Dominion laid down the proposition that war and commerce should not go together, and that this letter having been sent over from the old country to the Governor General of Canada, inviting the premier and his colleagues to a conference, they were quite justified in refusing to discuss the question of defence, or in refusing to discuss any question except the commercial one, on the ground that the commercial question and the defence question should not go together. Now, I do not intend to occupy the time of the House in commenting on the terms of this letter in reply, as It is not before us. But it has been laid on the Table of the House, and therefore it is in the possession of the House, and within the knowledge probably of most hon. members. I venture to say there is no member of this House who has read the invitation and the reply, who will not unhesitatingly acquit the right hon. the premier of either writing that reply or of any knowledge of the particular terms of that reply. The language, the spirit, the courtesy of that reply are such as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) alone could dictate. Neither the right hon. premier or any other of his ministers could have dictated such a response as was sent. It is not necessary for me to recapitulate all the terms of the letter ; but hon. gentlemen will remember

well that whereas the Prime Minister and his colleagues were invited to discuss other questions, and were ashed to make any suggestions in connection with them that they could, they very promptly slapped their prospective hosts in the face, and they very courteously refused to discuss anything but the problem of dollars and cents in which there might be some pecuniary profit. It. would have been quite within the province of the right hon. gentleman to have said at the conference, Canada is not prepared to do anything more in the way of defence than she has done ; he could very properly have taken that course ; but I do submit that nobody will believe that the premier ever dictated or	was aware	of a	reply	sodiscourteous to	his hosts,	who	had	invited the ministers to a banquet, and suggested to them certain topics to discuss. But the premier and his colleagues refuse	to discuss	any	but onequestion. Perhaps some hon. gentleman may say: But look at the last sentence, look, as	it were, at	the	sting	inthe tail ; for after pointing out that no fruitful result could flow from discussing any question but that of dollars and cents, they practically say to their hosts :	If,
however, you are bound to discuss the question of defence, we suppose we will have to listen to what you will have to say. That is the gracious reply His Excellency, on behalf of the government, has sent to the Colonial Secretary in response to the invitation to the right hon. premier and his colleagues.
But the premier of Ontario has discussed this very question. He went through England discussing it at various boards of trade and before other public bodies in the old land. Again and again this question of Imperial defence came up, and the Hon. Mr. Ross, formerly a member of this House, for many years a minister of the province of Ontario, and now for some time back premier of Ontario, pointed out that war and commerce were so closely allied that in his judgment the proper discussion of the defence problem was along commercial lines; that inasmuch as an enormous expenditure is necessary for the purpose of the defence of the empire, and inasmuch as we in the colonies were deriving all the benefits without contributing a dollar, he suggested that a duty of say 5 cents a bushel be placed on all grain brought into the colonies or into Great Britain, or that perhaps the duty might be 5 per cent all round on all products brought into the empire from whatever source, and that the revenue thus derived should be applied as a defence fund, thus making outsiders maintain the army and navy of the empire. Surely, Sir, that is a business proposition. I will go as far as any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House-I say this in answer to the taunt that was thrown out at the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as being opposed to taking part in a scheme for


William Barton Northrup: military defence-I say I will go as far as any hon. gentleman in this House in objecting to any military arrangement that would in any way, no matter how slight, deprive the Canadian people of the control of their own treasury and of their own men. But it is one thing to say we object to handing over to the Imperial authorities the control of Canadian money and Canadian lives, and it is another thing to say that we are not willing to discuss a question whereby, by simply imposing a tax- which would be the very Imperial preferential tariff that the right hon. gentleman claims he desires to attain, that he hopes to get in London, which was the very thing that Mr. Ross hoped to obtain in this simple way-by putting a tax of 5 per cent on all products coming into the empire, we might thus contribute to a common fund for the defence of the empire. Now I venture to say that when a gentleman occupying the position of the premier of Ontario points out this simple, unobjectionable way, and if it were possible even less objectionable since the budget speech of Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, and when the right hon. gentleman says in this House that it is impossible to consider war and commerce together, he takes a position in direct antagonism to the position the premier of Ontario has assumed on that question.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was not in the House when this debate commenced in order that I might have had the full advantage of all that has been said. I desire, however, to express briefly an opinion or two in regard to what has already been said in reference to two or three questions to which attention has been directed. It appears that about two months ago the attention of the country, of the government and of the commercial bodies, such as boards of trades, was directed to the fact that it was the intention of the British government to impose a duty upon corn, or to reimpose, in a degree, the corn laws. The matter was discussed at that time by the various commercial organizations of this country and I know in one, and in perhaps more, cases that the government of this country were approached and that they were pressed to make known the views of the country on this matter and to ask the British government that if these corn laws were reiniposed the colonies of Great Britain should be exempt from the operation of them. Whether the government took the advice which was given to them, or whether they have communicated to the British government on their own behalf, or on behalf of the country, or on behalf of the commercial organizations to


APRTT, 15, 1902
[Stage Direction]
which I have referred, I cannot say. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if they have not done this, they have fallen very far short in their duty. I regret that the right hon. leader of [DOT] the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) is not in his place at the present time because if they have not asked the British government to exempt the colonies from the operation of the duties which have been reimposed, I would like to inquire from the government, and to know to-night before this discussion closes, whether it is their intention, now, to press upon the British government to exempt vis from the operation of these corn laws. 1 Would urge them, if they have not done so, to take steps to have the British government exempt us in the way in which 1 have mentioned. It would appear from the debate, so far as it has gone, and it would appear from the attitude of the government for many years past that they have been very sceptical in regard to the question, of whether the British government would at any time within measurable distance reimpose the corn laws or adopt a protective tariff. The hon. Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) has said that five years ago no one could have expected that these corn laws would have been reimposed, that this duty would have been put in force and that it is because of the war. Certainly we have to look forward to all kinds of contingencies such as war which is one contingency which brings about great results. In view of all kinds of contingencies it does not seem that the government have been very wise in not placing themselves on record and trying to have this country relieved from the operation of this tariff in case, under any circumstances, it should come in force.
The premier gave utterance to a sentiment this afternoon at which I was very much surprised. He took the ground, as I understood it, that defence and commerce are two separate and entirely different things. I wish to disagree with him in respect to this matter. I cannot put myself in the standpoint of the Prime Minister when he makes such a statement, because, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that great navies are chiefly for the purpose of defending the commerce of the nations which own these great navies, that were it not for the commerce of the countries there would not be so much money spent in naval defence. I think that the ground is not well taken when the premier puts forth such a statement as that. The navy of Great Britain is increasing constantly. For what purpose is it increasing ? The navy of Germany is increasing and for what purpose V The navy of the United States is increasing. Is it not to defend the continually increasing foreign trade of the United States, of Germany and of Great Britain ? These are civilized nations ; they are not seeking for territorial extension at the present time so
much as to develop their trade and commerce and the navies upon which they spend so much money are for the purpose of enabling them, in case of complications, to defend that commerce. Therefore, I say that trade and defence go hand in hand, and while it is a very nice sentiment for the Prime Minister to talk about developing this country along other lines, and not to direct our attention to the question of military and naval expenditure so much, yet, we must be guided by what other nations have to do and we must come to the conclusion that we cannot be exempt from these obligations and responsibilities which other nations have to assume. The Prime Minister also referred to the fact that we lia'd done an Imperial work in building the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have heard that argument advanced on former occasions and by other gentlemen. The Canadian Pacific Railway has paid this country fourfold over all it cost us, but we have other great enterprises in this country .besides the Canadian Pacific Railway. We have other railways, we have other public works, we have canals, we have bridges, we have wharfs, and I think, Sir, that these would only be secondary to the_ Canadian Pacific Railway in these discussions in using such things as arguments, if, in fact, any of these things, and including the Canadian Pacific Railway, can be considered in any sense to have been built from an Imperial standpoint. I say that it is no argument and no excuse why we should not assume our fair share of responsibility in relation to the defence of the country that we should point to such matters as these. The right hon. gentleman also said that we did not want to turn the finances and revenues of the country in the direction of defence, that it would be better to spend the money on public works. I will admit, that, perhaps, it might be better, but we have to accept the inevitable. We cannot get away from these facts.
Now, I have said in this House on many occasions that I did not believe there was any other destiny for this country except that of British connection. I wish to reiterate that statement, and I wish to say that I hope the time is coming when we will all agree on that matter. I believe there is no medium course for us, that there is no course for us such as independence. I believe that if there was a sentiment, which I question very much, there is no such sentiment on the part of our people looking towards independence as would make it a practicable question, because, assuming that we were granted independence, in a very few years we would be absorbed by the United States, I admit after a struggle, but the struggle would be inevitable because the conclusion would be foregone.
Duncan Cameron Fraser: No, no.


Albert Edward Kemp: Well, 5,000,000 against 80,-000,000-of course, there might not be many


Samuel Hughes: And supplemented their pay.


Albert Edward Kemp: And supplemented their pay. However, for some reason or other the government have gone back on the principle they acted upon at the outset of the hostilities. Why they have done this is a mystery to me. It must be apparent that if they were right in the first instance, they were wrong in the second ; if they were right in equipping, clothing and transporting the men

of the first two or three contingents, they were wrong afterwards in not doing the same with regard to the subsequent contingents. We cannot say that in the paltry expenditure they incurred for this service, they did their whole duty to the empire. The contingent which is in course of organization at the present time, as I understand, are offering themselves for service in South Africa, and the ordinary citizen cannot possibly take any credit to himself, because the men who are offering themselves are doing all the sacrificing. The government as I understand, is not willing even to clothe them or give them a water bottle or a rifle. The young men are enthusiastic. We were told the other day by the Minister of Militia that three were offering where only one was needed. This is an evidence of the condition of public opinion in this country. It is quite evident that if five thousand were needed, they would be forthcoming. This being an evidence of the condition of public opinion in this country, I say that the government have taken a wrong stand in this matter also. I think it is an injustice to our young men that they should be put in that position. If the British government wanted men, they could get them from the semi-civilized tribes of India or Africa on the same conditions. Have we or have we not any interest in this matter ? Do we not feel that it is a good thing for this empire to be held together ? And is there not merely a sentimental reason for this, but a commerejal one also? If it had not been for the great efforts and sacrifices which Great Britain has made, and the lesser sacrifices which the colonies have made, all this could not have been accomplished, but the whole structure would have fallen to pieces. Not only would Great Britain have been deprived of her possessions in South Africa, but that would have been the beginning of ! the end. Therefore I say that the govern- ' ment made a mistake in this matter, and I deplore the way in which men who have i volunteered to go forward have been treated. , I contend that if Great Britain had desired j to obtain troops upon the conditions which , these Canadian soldiers have gone forward, , she could have got them in other parts of , the globe, and we in Canada should only f have sent forward as many men as it was ; possible for us to clothe, equip and frans- , port at the expense of Canada. When we ^ have an over-flowing treasury, and such sur- s pluses as the Minister of Finance boasts of, l and when we are spending so little on defence, we cannot say that we have done s our whole duty when we have spent a couple of million or so on the first contingents. From a monetary point of view we ( cannot be excused. The sentiments and j principles of these young men have been j established, because they have continued to ( volunteer after others returned from the E war, and after they knew of the privations, c Mr. KEMP.
the sufferings and the dangers which were before them.
The government have, in respect to the despatch of these contingents, simply occupied the position of outfitters. They have on behalf . of the British government, the British taxpayer, purchased the clothing, arms, and equipment, which any commercial organization could have done. We have one citizen of this country, with sufficient national sentiment and money, who organized, equipped and sent out to South Africa a contingent at his own expense. It is a pity that we have not had others with sufficient wealth to do likewise and thus to have relieved this government from responsibility which they have evidently een loath to assume. I do not wish to take up the time of the House any further. It is. a good thing for this country that we have young men such as those of whom we have read within the last few days-men such as Private Evans and Gap-tain Canruthers. If we did not have such material in this country, we could never expect to build it up as we hope to do. These men are the kind who have helped materially to build up other great nations, and I am sorry I have to say of this government that I believe it has pursued with regard to them a picayune policy. To my mind the government have made three mistakes. Their first was the reply which they gave concerning the question of Imperial defence. The second, is their attitude in reference to the contingents, and the third is the position in which they find themselves, owing to the re-imposition of the corn laws in Great Britain. Now that the right hon. Prime Minister is in his place, this House would be very much interested if he would tell us whether he lias up to the present, at the instance of the commercial organizations which petitioned him in respect to this question, approached the British government and asked it to exempt Canada from the affect of the tax imposed on bread stuffs. These commercial bodies foresaw two months ago what was likely to happen, and petitioned the right hon. gentleman to do (Something. But if no steps were taken during the past two months, I would like to have the right hon. gentleman say that steps will immediately be taken to ask the British government to give us a preference. I believe, from the reports in the papers this evening, that if such representations were made, Canada would be exempt from the application of the tax which has been imposed upon her wheat and other cereals.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I do not know that I should have thought of saying anything in reply to my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Kemp), had it not been for the repetition, in the latter course of his remarks, of the attacks upon the position of the gov-

ernment with respect to the sending of the contingents to fight for the empire in South Africa. My lion. friend enjoys the distin-tion of being more loyal to the King and more Catholic than the Pope, and in that respect he seems to have a considerable amount of -support in the good city in which he resides. He finds fault with us for not hraving done what he thinks we should have done. He finds fault because we have not paid what we were not asked to pay.


Albert Edward Kemp: Oh.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: And what it was not even suggested we should pay. The House knows well that when the question of sending a contingent first came before us, the government promptly responded to the call and did everything -to the letter which it was suggested the government should do. But our hon. friends even then were so anxious to find fault with the government that they contended that, in addition to supplementing the pay of our forces in South Africa, we ought to pay the rest of the money, although the British government were willing to pay it and never made any suggestion to us that we should do so. And they find fault with us because, in the case of this last contingent, we have not assumed a position different from that which it was suggested we should assume.
The British government, desirous of securing a number of colonial troops, made a suggestion to a number of colonial governments, and that suggestion was loyally responded :to by every government to which it was made, and by none more promptly and loyally than the government of Canada. In respect of the contingent being formed to-day, we are doing everything it has been suggested we should do, and if anything further be necessary, we are ready and willing to do whatever else may be suggested. Surely that is an attitude -in which the country will ibe disposed to support the government. And it is an attitude, in respect of which we can claim the support of the House and the country. But I venture to say that my hon. friend, in the remarks which he has addressed to this House, cannot claim the support of the House and the country. I venture to say that he cannot get the members on his own side to endorse the position he takes. I venture to say that he cannot get his leader in this House to -endorse the statements he has made and put them in the shape of a resolution. We are here, Sir, for the purpose of doing business, and not for the purpose of airing theories which we know are not going to be adopted. We are not here for the purpose of making -suggestions which cannot be carried into practical effect. That is not what the government is here for, whether that be what my hon. friend is here for or not. We are here for the purpose of dealing with practical business, and we have dealt with these contingents in a
practical business way, and we submit our conduct to this House and the country, confident that it will meet with their approval. Let my hon. friend get his leader to submit his policy to his friends in the House and the country, if he desires to have even respectable attention given to the suggestions he makes. This government and the Liberal party generally have no cause to feel ashamed of their position with regard to -sending troops to assist in fighting the battles of the empire. Hon. gentlemen opposite when -in opposition are very loyal, so far as their lips are concerned, but it is a matter of history that when they had an opportunity of doing what we have done, they did- not do it. They -did not supplement the pay, they -did not pay the expense, they did not send the men, although the suggestion was made that they should do so, when Britain was -in war in the Soudan, and other British -colonies were busy sending assistance -to the mother country. Where was Canada then ? Canada was then governed by the party of which the hon. gentleman is so enthusiastic a member. But Canada was not then in -the van of the fighting line. It lagged behind until the Liberal government took office. Since then it has not lagged behind but has gone forward and assumed a position in the councils of the empire which it never enjoyed before, and which it never would have assumed if we were left to follow -the theor-tical and unpractical counsels which the hon. gentleman suggests. The hon. gentleman has had some experience himself in endeavouring to formulate an imperial policy, but his experience -has -not been satisfactory, to the extent a-t least of making any impression on -the minds of the statesmen who govern the empire. What is the occasion of this debate ? Why has it been brought on ? So far as -my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) is concerned, I think we can all answer the question. The hon. member for East York could not resist the temptation-he never can-of being first to bulletin an important piece of news from his place in this House. His instinct as a newspaper man leads him to highly prize that privilege, and I think we all regard it as one of the things that may be expected of him and all rather enjoy it. But, so far as this debate has developed into an attack upon the policy of the government, I desire to point out that it is of a piece with the policy that has been followed by the hon. gentlemen on the other side with respect to the action of the government in connection with the affairs of the empire from the day we took office. It is a deliberate and persistent attempt to misrepresent the position of the government to the House and to the people. When we were in opposition the hon. gentlemen did the same thing. They were exceedingly loyal, and they declared that if we came into office the affairs of the British empire would not be safe, so far as our influence upon them was concerned.

But the moment we proceeded to give a practical evidence of our affection for the empire and our loyalty to it, what did they do ? No sooner was that resolution laid on the Table than they proceeded to show that they were opposed to that policy and to any policy that gave practical expression of Canada's loyalty to the empire. A little later on when the right hon. Prime Minister went to England what happened ? They were afraid of the effect of the success of the visit of the right hon. gentleman to the mother country, of the reception he met with there and the favourable impression he created upon the minds of the people. Fearing that these things would reflect upon their political fortunes, they proceeded to misrepresent what he had said, and to say repeatedly, yet without a shadow of foundation, that he had refused an offer that had been made of preferential treatment of Canadian products in the British market, or that he had declined in advance an offer that was about to be made. It took a considerable length of time to explode that misstatement. And now, we have the same thing going on. We find these hon. gentlemen trying to create the impression in the House and in the country that there is something in the position of this government that is not favourable to preferential trade, in fact, that we have declared ourselves hostile to it. I know of no case of any person who has any authority to speak on behalf of the Liberal party having declared himself hostile to preferential trade or having attempted to minimize its beneficial effects if it were possible to secure it. What was said repeatedly was that it was not likely that such a thing would come about in the very near future. As my hon. friend the Minister of Finance said it is simply a question of when the opportune time was. Was the time opportune in 1897 when my hon. friend the Finance Minister laid his budget on the Table and brought down this British preference proposal ? If the time was opportune in 1897, was it not opportune in 1896, when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power ? There was no striking change in the affairs of the empire between 1896 and 1897. If the members of this government could have got preferential treatment in 1897 why did not the Conservative government get it in 1890 ? Simply to call attention to the fact is all that is necessary to show that the thing is not arguable, that it is a statement that does not commend itself to the most easily deluded person. Now, these hon. gentlemen find that circumstances have arisen which make it possible that in the future, perhaps in the near future, the question of preferential freat-ment may be a subject of serious discussion. Nobody knows better than these hon. gentlemen do that the action of this government for the last five years has commended itself to the government of Great Britain and to the people of Great Britain.


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: Nobody knows better than they do that Canada at the present time is strong in the mother country ; and if, under the circumstances in which the empire is placed, it be possible to do anything to meet the wishes of Canada, it will be done. That is what we all feel and we feel it and know it to be the result of the course of action followed by this government for the last five years-a course of action that was diametrically opposed not only to what hon. gentlemen opposite propose now, but to what they carried out when they were in power, their policy of keeping Great Britain at arms length, of giving nothing unless they got an equivalent. Now that they see the time approaching when a discussion is likely to take place upon this question, they desire to make it appear to the people that this government approach the discussion of that subject in the coming conference in a hostile spirit. There is no foundation for such statement. On the contrary, every member of this government looks forward to the conference with the strongest hope and desire that something may be done to improve our trade relations, not only with Great Britain but with the other colonies of the British empire. And if Great Britain finds itself on account of its revenue necessities in a position to consider an idea which Lord Salisbury would not entertain two years ago, we say that we have been favoured by fortune and shall be most happy to take advantage of the opportunity thus presented. There is nothing whatever in the document to which the hon. gentleman referred which justified the misrepresentations made this afternoon. It is a document which, I venture to say, is calculated,to do that which it ought to do. It is calculated to convey to the British government what is in the minds of the advisers of the Crown in this country-that we regard the commercial question as the practical question, the question from which results may be expected, but that as to the other questions, while we are prepared to discuss them, we do 'not at the present time feel that there is likely to be any tangible or practicable result. If the gentleman's own views were written down, I venture to say they would be expressed by that memorandum. The hon. gentleman himself knows, I am sure, just as well as we do, that the commercial question is the one from which practical results may follow, but that the other questions while they may be discussed are not likely to yield any practical results at the present time. And if we have expressed, as I venture to say we have, the mind of nine-tenths of the members of this House on both sides, and of nine-tenths of the members of the Canadian community, I do not see why the hon. gentleman should take the trouble to waste the time of the House in finding fault. I did not wish to take up time this evening, but I desired to call attention to the position

that the government has taken with regard to the contingent, upon which the hon. gentleman made an attack, and I take it that it is quite clear that the position that the government has taken is one that will commend itself both to the House and to the country.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT (East Simcoe).: The House has now listened to three members of the. Cabinet address thetnselves to the task they have in hand, and that it is a task is quite evident from the fact that tlie question of real importance that has been raised, and that will be regarded as real importance throughout this country, has not been answered by any of them. The whole question at issue is whether or not this government proposes to address itself to the task, if it is a task, of obtaining from the British government favourable treatment for Canada in this question of grain importation into the motherland. I can easily understand why these hon. gentlemen are ashamed to deal with this question. I can easily understand why they feel diffident in approaching it. The fact is they find themselves in a pit and they are unable to extricate themselves. What is the history of the question of British preference ? In the autumn of 1896 when the elections were being proceeded with, the present premier went into the province of Ontario. Sir Charles Tupper had introduced the question of British preference, and the premier who was then the leader of the opposition found that he had to do, as he has always done, and I suppose always will do-he had to trim his sails to catch the wind.
Finding that that was a popular cry in the province of Ontario, in his celebrated London speech which has been referred to this afternoon, the hon. gentleman went strong, and endeavoured to go Sir Charles Tupper one better on the question of a preference for our food stuffs within the Bri-ish market. Then he found himself face to face with his pre-election utterances. Later on he found himself in Great Britain, and true to his free trade principles, he at once placed himself in communication with gentlemen who had the same political aptitudes as himself. My recollection is that there was a meeting held in the city of Liverpool, that a banquet was tendered to the right hon. gentleman, and that on that occasion" his first utterance was along the line that Canada did not want any preference in the British market at all. Now the right hon. gentleman 'was in one of two positions < Either he was not politically honest when he preached that doctrine of preferential free trade, or he was in a position where he might accomplish it but did not wish to accomplish it. Be that as it may, the right hon. gentleman's statements were acclaimed, and I think on more than one occasion, in addressing meetings in different parts of Great Britain, banquets which were tendered him, he went on this self same cry again, that no preference was desired and no preference sought by the Canadian people. So strong were his statements in this regard that he was at once heralded by the celebrated Cobden Club as an apostle of free trade from protectionist Canada. If reports be true, although I have never seen that precious article, the right hon. gentleman had the honour of having pinned on his breast the Cobden medal which, on more than one occasion, he has been advised that he holds to-day under false pretenses, heading as he does a protectionist government in Canada, and that a quick return should be made of that medal, which must be now a much despised article because it has never been paraded in this country.
Now, what is the position of these hon. gentlemen to-day ? The Conservative party have held the right hon. gentleman and his government to task from the very moment they stood on the threshold of office, in that they have not tried to impress upon the home authorities the desirability of carrying this policy into effect. As the Minister of Finance stated this afternoon, five years ago it was an absurdity to ask for that, and he said to-night that we would not have been greeted with the news that we have heard to-day of this imposition on flour and grain, were it not that this impost was rendered necessary by the exigencies of the war. Well, that is rather a prophetic declaration for that hon. gentleman. But he must remember that he and his colleagues have always fairly laughed the matter out of court in this respect, and have contended that so long have these duties been abandoned in Great Britain that it was impossible that she should ever have recourse to them again. The hon. gentlemen have proceeded on these lines, and their press has gone on these lines ; but when they are confronted with the information that has come to-day from Great Britain, they are startled, it is almost too quick a turn for them to take ; and they are in this dilemma, that they cannot to-night inform the House whether they intend to ask the home government to make that concession. Now how is this news being greeted in Great Britain ? I find in the Montreal ' Star ' of to-day a despatch from New York containing the correspondence of the New York ' Evening Post ' to this effect:
Almost before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had resumed his seat in the House of Commons, yesterday afternoon, the streets were ringing with the news-hoys' cries of ' tax on bread !' Thus beginning an agitation with a possible serious sequel.
Taxes on wheat and flour, practically, is a return to the duties which were enacted after the repeal of the old protective corn law. Influential supporters of the ministry intend to press for the complete exemption of Canadian and Australasian grain, as a response to the colonial preferential tariffs and some recognition of Colonial help in the war.

Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, almost alone among the ministers, stands between them and success.
Now this afternoon I listened to the Minister of Finance's exposition of their policy. While with one breath he said that the whole preference to Great Britain was sentiment, _ in the next place he said it was really a " sordid proposition on the part of the government, that they went to Great Britain with this proposition, not out of sentiment, but with the hope and expectation that some day later on a preference might be given to Canada. To-day these gentlemen are brought face to face with the fact that they have been slow in the past, and they find themselves in a dilemma. Let us go a little further and read another quotation which I have here, showing how this matter is being viewed by persons from other colonies. In the Montreal ' Star ' of to-day a number of gentlemen are interviewed on the situation, and one gentleman gives this opinion :
Mr. Caldwell, of the firm of Steen, Maeky, Logan and Caldwell, of Auckland, New Zealand, who is at present in Montreal, expressed the opinion that the business men of his country would be disappointed at the new budget. In discussing the matter to-day, he said that, while New Zealand had not given Great. Britain a preference in her tariff, the people were perfectly Willing to do so, provided it was placed on a reciprocal basis. He did not understand how Canadian- manufacturers could prosper under the present tariff.
Now there is the opinion of a gentleman from New Zealand who, I presume, is a gentleman of prominence, as his opinion has been sought by a journal of the importance of the Montreal ' Star.' This fact is evident, that the members of the government have been caught suddenly by this proposition of the British government, and they are now endeavouring to back up and wait for public opinion. They are endeavouring to force the opposition, if possible, to take the ground that we are in favour of a defence fund for army and navy purposes, in order to precipitate a discussion along those lines so that they might strengthen themselves in the House and in the country. Well, it is no new game for these hon. gentlemen to stand and wait for public opinion and popular approval. We have seen that in connection with the question of sending the contingents. Why, if there ever was a question agitated before the people of Canada on which the government stood, and halted, and waited for popular opinion before they moved, it was on the question of the first contingent. Why, Sir, it was the scandal of the country, and day in and day out the ministry were at daggers drawn on that very question. The ' Patrie ' newspaper, controlled by the Minister of Public Works, who, as the country knows, is the master of this administration, declared day after day that there would be no contingent; and afterwards when these contingents were sent Mr. BENNETT.
there were apologies all along the line from these hon. gentlemen. If I recollect rightly it was the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier) who apologized on different platforms in the province of Quebec at the last elections, for the presence of those men in South Africa who had gone from Canada. The whole plea of the government was that these men had not been sent by the Canadian government, but that this government had in their wisdom [DOT] simply allowed these men to go from Canada to South Africa. These hon. gentlemen are in this position to-day, that they have failed to keep abreast of the times, people are holding them to account on this question of preferential trade, and for missing an opportunity that would probably have been theirs had they grasped for it. To-day they are endeavourig to draw a herring across the path, they are endeavouring to force this side of the House into taking some stand that can be used in the province of Quebec. The Prime Minister made a speech to-day that he cannot deny will be used both in Ontario anid in Quebec. The right hon. gentleman struck the keynote when he said that he was opposed and opposed fairly and squarely to this question of giving assistance to the empire in strengthening her armaments, whether they be naval or whether they be forces in the field. I think that was plainly understood. When the right hon. gentleman came up to the fence he saw the dilemma with which he was confronted and I assume that he thought it would be better to take a position of anti-imperialism, as it is termed in the province of Quebec, and then to approach the people in the other provinces by simply presenting the question in the shape of a commercial matter. But, I can tell the right hon. gentleman that there has grown up in Great Britain a strong feeling in favour of a preference being given to our food supplies in that country and I believe it has been hastened, not by the question of this so-called preference which has been given under our tariff, but that the feeling has been strengthened in Great Britain by reason of that fact that our valiant sons volunteered their lives in defence of the empire in South Africa.


Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).: Mr. Speaker, I would not have taken any part in this discussion excepting for the allusion that was made by the last speaker (Mr. Bennett) to an article which appears today in the Montreal ' Star.' It appears to me that if there was anything wanting to make the Liberal party substantial in this country and in the motherland it is the article that appears to-day in the Montreal ' Star.' What is the effect of that statement ? We have, to-day in England, by reason of the enormous war expenditure which has accumulated there, the necessity of what is called in England a protective tariff. It is not a protective tariff ; it is a tariff for revenue. The English people are

not a people who believe in protection. The whole history of the past shows that they are not a people who believe in protection. They are a people who believe in a tariff for revenue so far as the necessities of the country are concerned and free trade is their factum. What does the Montreal ' Star ' say ? Properly read this is the language which is used :
Almost before the Chancellor of the Exchequer had resumed his seat in the House of Commons, yesterday afternoon, the streets were ringing with the newsboys' cries of *tax on bread!'' Thus beginning an agitation with a possible serious sequel.
Taxes on wheat and flour, practically is, a return to the duties which were enacted after the repeal of the old protective corn law. Influential supporters of the ministry intend to press for the complete exemption of Canadian and Australasian grain as a response to-
What ?
-as a response to the colonial preferential tariffs.
What does that mean, Sir ? Does it mean that the English government repudiate the preferntial tariff which the Canadian government" enacted some years ago ? What does it prove ? That the English people and the influential supporters of the Conservative administration in Great Britain appreciate that tariff. They appreciate it so highly as to insist that the government shall give a preferential tariff on Canadian wheat. For what ? In response to the preferential tariff that was enacted in Canada by the Liberal government of Canada.


Mr. BROCK.: You said you would not take it.


William Manley German: 
William Findlay Maclean: He will win yet.


William Manley German: He has sprung this discussion on the House that his own friends did not want. Let him stand up in this House and take the position, that he appears to desire, of moving a resolution condemning the preferential tariff and then we will believe that he is honest in his suggestions. Let the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), who did move an amendment to the motion to go into committee of supply which is a sort of a veiled ignoring of the government's action in this direction, but which, however, did not come out flatfooted against the proposition, move a resolution condemning this policy. Let any hon. gentleman who sits on the opposite benches move a resolution condemning this policy and then we will believe that they have confidence in the assertions they make In this House, hut, until they do that, neither we on this side of the House, nor the people of the country will believe that they have any confidence in their own assertions, but we will believe, as we do believe, that they are simply talking to the galleries. It is mere buncombe and they desire to make political capital without being responsible for what they say. The government are responsible for what they say. The government are responsible for what they do, as stated by the hon. Minister of the Interior. They are going into this matter as a business proposition. They have shown themselves to he a business government. They have conducted the affairs of the country on business lines.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: Hon. gentlemen opposite say ' hear, hear,' in that peculiar tone of voice in which they generally express themselves when they have no other argument to make. But, Sir, they know as well as we know on this side of the House that the people of Canada to-day have confi-

dence in the Liberal government as expressed in the last election, and they will have confidence in this government when they go before them at the next general election. We have confidence in the premier of Canada and the other representatives who will go to England to attend the Coronation and to take part in the conference which will be held there of colonial ministers when there will be matters discussed involving jiarge interests in this country and we have no fear but that the interests of Canada will be looked after carefully, fairly and properly and that if ever any preferential treaty or tariff is made as between Great Britain and her colonies it will be brought about by the careful, business-like proposition of the Liberal government of Canada.


William Rees Brock: Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen on your right must be in a very difficult position this evening, because they find themselves facing an issue which a cabinet of business men would never have to face, if they really were the cabinet of business men that was promised to this country. The least businesslike amongst them, the right hon. premier went to England some years ago and notwithstanding the statement of the gentleman from Welland (Mr. German), who endeavours to befog the question with noise, the leader of the government did make the statement positively, that he a'sked nothing in return except good will for the preference which he was then giving to Great Britain. I give that right hon. gentleman the credit of knowing business men, and I will assume that he has surrounded himself with business men. The leader of these business men, the Finance Minister, was heard to-niglit in reply to a gentleman on this side of the House, and I am perfectly prepared to leave the arguments used from the opposition benches and the arguments used by the government and their supporters to the business men of Canada, to say which side has had the best of the debate. The hon. gentleman from Welland (Mr. German) very loudly and very noisely sneered across the House at the member for East York (Mr. Maclean). Well, the member for East York may feel perfectly satisfied in being sneered at by the member for Welland. The member for East York has never been in purgatory for eight years for his sins. The member for East York was never prevented from entering this House for eight long years as was the member for Welland, who, 1 suppose, is one of the business men behind the Prime Minister. If business men are good business men one of their characteristics is foresight. They can read the signs of the times. They can, before a crisis comes to hand, -feel it in the air. The right hon. gentleman has considerable practice in trimming his sails to adverse winds, and in voting for a thing while endeavouring to argue against I


William Manley German: *	it. That right hon. gentleman was in Eng-i land, and how was it he did not see that
protection was in the air. It has been there for years past, gradually developing, gra-
*	dually strengthening until to-day England has imposed a tax on the food of the people;
: a tax which the premier of Canada and the premier of Ontario declared was too ridiculous a thing to be thought of. In my humble capacity as a new member of this House, I made the positive statement of my belief that protection was coming in England. I could feel from the English press and from the expression of English people, that they were carefully preparing for it, and that if it did come it would be accepted by the masses of the people. Let it be remembered that the duty on corn is not adverse to every interest in England. We knew well that a duty on corn, a duty on cattle, a duty on various products of the American continent, will serve the interests of a very large party in England; will benefit the whole agricultural community, the labourers as well as the farmers. I therefore say that this cabinet or business men in Canada have been strangely wanting in foresight, or, have been strangely Wanting in courage. It is a characteristic of a successful business man that he should have courage. I contend that this government have proved themselves from first to last to be incapable of conceiving a new idea. Every idea they have had in connection with the government of this country, has been either borrowed or stolen. They tell us they are not protectionists. Is that true ? Occupying the position that you do, Mr. Speaker, and occupying it so very acceptably to both sides of the House, and occupying it so impartially; I can well understand that when you are using that impartial judgment it must create great difficulty in your mind to know whether you can depend on any statement coming from that side of the House. You know, Sir, that while these gentlemen to your right are stating they are not protectionists, they are at the same time protecting, but in an insufficient way, the industries of this country. You know, Sir, that if they did not lack the characteristic of courage they would be full-fledged protectionists. The Minister of the Interior, after a good deal of coaching, made a speech to-night. I was very anxious to reply to him, but really when he got through with his speech it was apparent that he had not his heart in his subject, as he usually has. He left very little to reply to, except that he stated that we on this side of the House should come down to practical business, and that we should move a resolution to do away with the present preference. Our quarrel is not so much with the present preference as it is with the injury which that preference is doing to this country. Our quarrel with that preference which we have given to England in this market, is not that it is an imperial preference doing good to the em-

pire, but is, that it is merely a one-sided preference giving the manufacturer in Yorkshire a preference over the manufacturer in Canada, and placing the Yorkshire manufacturer in a position to injure some and many .of the great industries of this country. Therefore we are finding no fault with the preference as far as it goes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Rees Brock: But we contend that it injures some industries of this country, and to that extent it should be removed. And if this cabinet of business men were doing their duty, they would at once acknowledge that they are wrong and remedy the injury which this preference has done. 1 believe that every one of these gentlemen opposite has admitted that the preference is an injury to some of the industries of Canada. Why cannot they apply the remedy ? They have among them a gentleman who has courage; they have the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), whom this country respects for his courage. I believe that the Minister of Public Works has done the very best he could to bring the other members of the cabinet to his own mind. Some say he is the master of the administration. I am sorry he is not ; 1 regret it very much because if he were we would have a better state of things in this country.


Samuel Hughes: He will be soon.


William Rees Brock: The Minister of the Interior told us that the Liberal government had come to the help of Great Britain, but that the Conservative government did not help Britain during the war in the Soudan. Does he mean to make any comparison between the situation at the time of the Soudan war and the crisis in South Africa, which meant almost the destruction of the British empire ? There is no comparison between the two cases. But, during the Soudan war the right hon. leader of the government was in opposition. Now, that we are in opposition he asks us why we do not do something. Let me ask him why he did not do something when he was in opposition ? There is not a line in any of his speeches to condemn the then government for not giving assistance to the motherland during the Soudan war. When he was in opposition why did he not move a resolution such as he and the Minister of the Interior talk about ? In all the records of this parliament, there is nothing to show that Sir Wilfrid Laurier when leader of the opposition ever ventured to condemn the Conservative government for not sending troops to the Soudan. That was the statement made by the Minister of the Interior. So that the Liberal opposition, according to their own statement, were derelict in their duty, if the statement they make now is correct. The hon. member for East York has been taunted with being a newspaper man-a
terrible disgrace, you know-and as having made a scoop-I think that is the newspaper term. He certainly has, and I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there is an agitation in the dovecotes on the other side of the House. They are face to face with a difficult question, and with their actions of the past five years. But they have themselves to blame for it, and we on this side of the House are endeavouring to show them their way out.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


William Rees Brock: The Prime Minister is backed up by these gentlemen who can always be got to howl for him, whether he is right or wrong. But let the Prime Minister take a manly and straightforward course ; let him put himself into communication to-night with the Prime Minister of England ; let him ask the British government to exempt Canada from these duties which are to be imposed against the rest of the world ; and let him withdraw the statement he made, that this country wants nothing in return for the preference it has given to the mother country. Let him say that he was mistaken in making that statement, and that this country wants and demands something in return. By taking this course he will place himself more in sympathy with the people of this country than he did on the last occasion that he visited England. The right hon. gentleman wound up his speech by saying that the people of this country were at his back, and that what he wanted was their approbation. If he wanted to retain that approbation, the course I have indicated, the manly, direct, straightforward course, is the course he should pursue. We on this side of the House have announced a definite policy, and we have asked that hon. gentlemen on the other side should have a definite policy. Have the gentlemen sitting behind the Treasury Benches heard anything of a definite policy ? They have not. More ministers have spoken on this question than spoke on the budget ; but has any minister announced a definite policy on this question ? I leave it to hon. gentlemen on the other side to say whether they have or not. We are not ashamed of this discussion. It will go abroad to the country, and it will create a remarkable sensation. It will remind the people that the right hon. Prime Minister went through the province of Ontario stating that he was going to surround himself with business men who would conduct the affairs of the country on business principles ; but they will not be convinced that it is a business principle to give something for nothing. As the right hon. Prime Minister is on the eve of going to England a second time, we will endeavour to see that he does not make the same mistake that he did before, but rather that lie will remedy that mistake ; for I feel that the opposition in this House on this question are repre-

seating an absolute majority of the people of Canada.


Thomas Barnard Flint: Hr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat, after the manner in which this question has been discussed by his colleagues on the other side of the House, should presume to say that he desired that there should be some definite question placed before the House to-night to be decided by a vote. Hon. gentlemen understand that the question before the House is whether the Speaker should leave the Chair or not, for us to take up the work of the Committee of Supply ; and our hon. friends on the other side of the House, on that very simple resolution, have discussed almost every question that has come up in the party politics of Canada in the last four or five years. They have discussed the question of the contingents and the attitude of the Liberal party and that of their party on that question ; they have discussed the question of the preferential tariff which was framed by the present government ; they have discussed almost every other question which has come within the lines of party politics. My hon. friend from Hastings reduced the whole discussion down to a question of politeness, as to whether the answer of the government to the invitation of the Imperial government was couched in sufficiently polite terms-in other words whether this government should not have said that they would cheerfully discuss all the questions laid before them by Mr. Chamberlain in his invitation. Unfortunately for us, if there should be a vote on this question, we shall be called upon to vote at random. If our hon, friends would consent to confine the discussion to any one of these questions, it would be far more satisfactory ; and the repeated invitation they have had to formulate their views in a resolution, so that we might bind them to some declaration of policy, has a great deal of force in it. I do not think it rests in the mouth of hon. gentlemen opposite to charge this government witn a lack of policy on these questions, when they are so notoriously divergent upon them. Perhaps before this debate is through we shall hear from the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) as to his views on the contingents-whether the contingents which are now being sent to South Africa under the auspices of the Dominion government, and tile contingents which went before, should be paid for by this government, and as to whether the government of Canada should enter into negotiations with the government of Great Britain for the purpose of establishing a large scheme of imperial defence. Many hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House take a stand that this government should be bound to join with the mother country in a large and broad scheme of imperial defence. I would like to see hon. gentlemen opposite united on
these questions before they charge the government of the day with being disunited upon them. The party opposite has always claimed to be pre-eminently the party of imperialism and of extreme loyalty to the mother country ; and yet I have listened in vain to-day for one word of sympathy with the people of the mother country for the enormous burdens which they have laid upon themselves in maintaining the dignity and prestige of the empire in South Africa ; and in view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has to meet a deficit of fifty or sixty million pounds sterling in the current year, I think that hon. gentlemen opposite might have looked at that phase of the question. It is all very well to speak of the small duty which is proposed to be levied on wheat and corn as a protective policy ; but any one who knows anything of a protective, as compared with a revenue policy, must admit that this is a portion of a revenue policy pure and simple. The position of the mother country is that notwithstanding this small duty and the increase of the income tax and of the stamp tax, there will still be a deficit of about thirty million pounds which must be raised by a revenue bill. Any one who looks fairly at the facts of the case cannot believe that this is the entering wedge of a protective policy in regard to foodstuffs. So far as the Dominion of Canada is concerned, while I believe every man in Canada, whether Liberal or Conservative, would be willing and glad to see some preference given to our products in the mother country, and would welcome it as a response to the fraternal feeling displayed by Canada in her preferential tariff, yet I feel that we should not go to the mother country, either in times of peace or in times of stress, to huckster and bargain with her on questions of this kind.
I was somewhat surprised that any gentleman, particularly the hon. member who has just spoken, should have ventured to assert that the Prime Minister said in another country that Canadians did not want any preference in the British market. It is true that when brought to task by my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German,), he varied the assertion somewhat by declaring that what the Primq Minister said was that he would not then ask any preference for the Dominion, as a consequence of the preference we were giving. Before resuming his seat, however, he again repeated his original story, which he utterly failed to prove. One would suppose that the hon. gentleman would have been prepared with a quotation and the day and the date, to substantiate the statement he made, but nothing of the kind. Now there is considerable distinction in stating that Canadians did not want a preference and declaring that we) were not basing the preference we offered on a reciprocal preference by the mother country; and to have demanded such reciprocal pre-


William Rees Brock: ference would have been perfectly useless at the time, because a duty on breadstuffs was a thing no one then contemplated. It would have been considered as something outrageous for any public man to have insisted on the British government placing a duty on the foodstuffs of the British people. But since, in the stress of war, it has become necessary for the British government to raise more revenue by means of a tariff on breadstuffs, which previously was undreamed of, there might be some reason for expecting that the preference given the British in our market, which aroused so much enthusiasm in the mother country, which did so much to draw us together, might possibly be reciprocated. Upon the general subject of our relations to the mother country much no doubt will be said before the close of the present session, and I may be pardoned if I express my own views on that question, in which, I think, my colleagues about me largely share. The commercial relations between the colonies and the mother country and the Imperial defence are two entirely separate questions. The question of Imperial defence is one upon which the people of this country are by no means a unit, one upon which the Conservative party is not a unit, and it is possibly one upon which no inconsiderable number of people in the Dominion have formed no positive conclusion. We all know the strong opinion held by Sir Charles Tupper on this point. We all know the intensity of the language he used when denouncing the very idea of the Dominion being bound in any way to meet any of the charges in the British Exchequer with regard to imperial defence. And he has many followers in the Conservative party. The principles as laid down by him I think were very sound. In defending our own territory, in providing an adequate force for the defence of Canada, and in carrying on our internal legislation in such a way as to make Canada strong and prosperous and cultivate a strong feeling of solidarity of the empire in Canada-all these things are sufficient guarantee that we will be ready when the circumstances require us to bear our share in the defence of the empire. The government has been charged with slackness of duty, and odiums attempted to be thrown on it for not having voted larger sums in support of the South; African contingents. I do not think that the financial aid of Canada is by any means so important to the mother country as is taken for granted by some hon. gentlemen opposite. What the statesmen and the British people do appreciate and admire is the spirit of loyalty and enthusiasm with which we responded to the call of the empire in South Africa. The noble enthusiasm which our sons manifested in laying upon the altars of their country their lives, prospects and honour stirred the pulse of the English people. That which they admired was not any contribution in money or financial re-88
sources, but the contribution of sentiment, zeal and loyalty which we sent in the person of our sons who went to fight the battles of the empire in South Africa. Not only we, but the people of the mother country, are proud of the young men who thus proved their courage, ability and devotion to their country, and who have not only gained a high place in the esteem of their own countrymen, but have done a great deal to excite admiration for Canada in the minds of British statesmen and people. And when the colonial and British statesmen meet at London to plan closer commercial relations between the colonies and the mother country, if they come to a wise solution of this question, that will solve ail the others. I agree with the right hon. the First Minister that there is a vast difference between being united for the purposes of war and united for the purposes of commerce, and that we ought to keep these two questions separate and distinct. It seems to me that in the time of stress and trial through which the mother country is passing, and when she has to impose a duty on breadstuffs, it is only a narrow spirit which would prompt us to clamour immediately to be relieved from all the weight and burden of that duty. We can safely leave this matter to the Imperial instincts of the British government and people, confident that the part which Canada has played will inspire them with a desire to settle this question in our interests as well as theirs. I hope, in the meantime, that our hon. friends opposite will come to a conclusion as to the stand they propose to take, and that when they succeed in finding themselves in a position to formulate a policy, they will do so that we may know exactly where they are, which it is impossible to say at present.


Mr. S. E. GOURLEY (Colchester).: I regret very much, Mr. Speaker, that mere party politics should be imported into a discussion of this character. If that spirit, were only eliminated from discussions of questions such as the one under consideration, immense good would no doubt result from our joint counsels. One would think, that a question such as this, if no other, could be approached, without importing into it, any form of party politics ; but while I have listened with pleasure to many speeches on both sides, I must say that I have listened with regret to the speech of the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sif-ton) and that of the hon. gentleman from Welland, who has just sat down. They were speeches of the parish politics order, and of a more than usually narrow character. I regret indeed that this motion did not take another form, and that due notice was not given, so that we might have come to the discussion of the great questions involved thoroughly prepared to deal with them in a broad and equitable spirit. I regret, however, more than anything else, that the right hon. the First Minister, when he first



received tlie invitation from the King of England to discuss the many questions of imperial importance referred to in the invitation, did not come to parliament and ask us to discuss the matter as the great council of the nation, as patriots, in order to ascertain how the interests of Canada might best be served. I regret that the right hon. gentleman did not get above the level of party politics. I would have expected him to say : Gentlemen, this is not a party question; I will forbid any of my people discussing it as a party question, and I will ask you, on your side, to discuss it, in its national and imperial aspect, with a view to working out the highest destiny of Canada. No more important question could be discussed in this parliament than the question we have before us at this moment. I believe we are at the parting of the ways. We have had misguided discussions in the parliament of Canada. There has never been any question, however great, that was not hedged about by miserable party considerations. When the Canadian Pacific Railway was undertaken, one would have thought that both parties, would have approached it with the common desire to build up Canada. The building of the Intercolonial Railway was a great national issue ; but it was approached as a party question. Anybody should have known that if we could not build the Intercolonial Railway and operate it successfully ; if we could not build the Canadian Pacific Railway and run it successfully ; ' the shreds and patches of Canada ' should have been thrown to the winds or put up at auction ; for if we could not build a national railway, we could never hope to make a nation of these provinces. But, notwithstanding all errors and mistakes, to-day we are on the threshold of national and imperial greatness. I declare it as my own opinion, that, if the people of Canada had been filled with the national ambitions and aggressive spirit that have characterized the people of the United States, if we had proceeded to spread the fame and glorify the resources of Canada as they did those of the United States, we should to-day possess a population and political power equal to theirs. They thrust themselves into the - eye of the world, they boosted and glorified themselves on every platform, until they dominated the public opinion of the world, and even frightened Canada into subserviency. A few years ago there were people in this country weak enough and mean enough to talk about annexation. To-day, I am glad to say, quite the opposite feeling prevails. In my part of the country at any rate, any man who would dare to utter such a sentiment would be tied up to the nearest post and horsewhipped. But, fortunately in every crisis in our history some men have been found broad and liberal enough to forget party, and to look with a single eye to the interest of Canada as a Mr. GOURLEY.
whole. At this moment I want the government of Canada, I want the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), above all I want the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte), to take a broad imperial view of the questions before us, and to labour during the next year for the welfare of Canada. As I have already mentioned, we are at the parting of the ways. To-day, if this parliament, should unanimously approach the English parliament and government, with a resolution, telling them that every man in this country is loyal, that every man in this country is prepared to sacrifice every dollar of the property of Canada in defence of the empire, that every man, woman and child is prepared to back the empire in its trials in any part of the world-if we approached the empire in that spirit and said : As we are loyal, as we are devoted to the empire, as we are prepared to back this empire with all the resources of the country, help us to build up a great Canadian nationality and we will stand by you for good or for evil, in war or in peace. That proclamation would inflame the affections of the people of England for us and arouse their national pride. That is the doctrine we should propound ; and, if the Prime Minister had come forward and proposed a resolution of that character and had said : We want a tariff upon our wheat, and upon all our agricultural products, how strong would our position have been ? Every man will see, that if, tomorrow, we could face the world, with the intelligence, that, the English government, had given us a preference on wheat and other agricultural products, from that moment we would fill the eye of the world, from that moment Canada would be the goal of energetic and ambitious people. We would fill the eye of the world in this twentieth century as the United States filled it for fifty years to the close of the last century. Our supreme need is population. What do we want in Canada ? We want ten or fifteen millions of people to come into this country quickly. We do not desire to wait for forty or fifty or a hundred years, but we want them to come at once. Let the world know that we have a preference in the British market of even 31 cents a bushel on wheat, then, with the profits on wheat as narrow as they are, Canada would have a dominant and masterful position in the great agricultural markets of the world. And, Mr. Speaker, that ought to be the effect of the step that the British government have just taken. I have no doubt they have taken this position advisedly, because they have found it necessary to thrust this boon upon us. They found we could not take a hint, so they have had to come at us with a sledge to attract our attention. Three or four years ago, they invited the statesmen of Canada to go into council with them. They said : We are a wealthy nation, we have many enemies in every part of the world, we have

splendid young nations growing up in every quarter of the globe, but they are not growing rapidly enough-come and give us the benefit of your counsel and see if we eau-not mutually assist each other. That, 1 have no doubt, is what Mr. Chamberlain meant by the invitation sent to the government of Canada on the occasion of the late Queen's Diamond Jubilee. How was he met [DOT]? The premier virtually flouted his advances. In effect, he said: We are unknown and poor in Canada, and we desire to remain unknown and poor, and we will accept no favours from your country. On the present occasion, the British government have gone further than before. Not only have they invited Canada to take part in their councils, but they have said : You are apparently dense and unappreciative in Canada ; so we will give you a protective tariff before we invite you into council ; we have so arranged it that very little diplomacy will give you a preferential tariff that will make your country prosperous ' beyond the dreams of avarice.' And still they are met in this unseemly manner. I must say I have been impressed with the politeness and courtly manner of the Prime Minister. I have felt pleased when he has gone abroad, for I felt that though he did not represent correctly the true political policy of Canada, he did represent its culture and refinement, and would do us good abroad. I may say that I have never been able' to be bitter in politics or to say unkind things. Perhaps that is a weakness in a man addressing this House. But I am compelled to say that I almost feel bitter against the Prime Minister for not seizing this unparalleled opportunity for not accepting the benefits that were offered irrespective of party advantage, and asking the House to adopt such a resolution as I have referred to. I have often observed the pleasant smiles heretofore upon the face of the Prime Minister in this House. He could afford to be pleasant, for he has a majority at his back, and they are docile to a degree. He has only to look back at them, and they respond with loud plaudits and ready votes. But something has pained deeply the heart of the Prime Minister today. I never saw any one exhibit in his face such sorrow as that which has marked his fine countenance to-day. And I know that his heart was sore far beyond the power of his face to conceal. He knows the awful position he is in. When this proposal was sprung upon him, his keen political sense told him, that he was like the fox, that had been cunning often in his time, but the hounds at last had him by the haunch.
But, Sir, I need not further extend my sympathy to the First Minister. I leave him for further solace to his Quebec followers. But I have an unbounded sympathy for the Minister of Finance, because he comes from my province, and I can sincerely say that I have never been able to think an unkind 88J
thought of any man in this House who comes from that province. I am sorry for the Minister of Finance. In the old days he was at the head of the local government in Nova Scotia, and I believe conscientiously embraced the awful heresy of free trade.
I believe that he honestly advocated it. He used to go around the shores of Nova Scotia, those wild and beautiful shores ; they are always noisy, but his voice was still louder than the winds or the waves, in advocacy of this delusion. Now, Sir, he spoke of free trade, he gloried in the promulgation of the doctrine, and I believe he was honest in his fantasy, but it was a most delusive fantasy for an intelligent man to indulge in. Now, in what an unkind position has fate put him ? It appears as if nature is making war upon him. In Nova Scotia he was free to embrace any trade vagary, for his government had nothing to do with trade policies. He could talk any nonsense he liked about trade policies ; but here unfortunately he is chained, he is bound hand and foot by a masterful colleague. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, the bland, captivating smile on the face of the Minister of Public Works this afternoon ? The gods have come his way ; they have put upon him a crown. People call him the master of the administration. Why, he never was the master of the administration until to-day, and the crown has been placed upon his brows by England. That tax of threepence a hundredweight, gives protection in this country a safe guarantee for the next half century. We know that the Minister of Public Works has had a great deal of trouble in holding the rest of his colleagues down to protection. But now the British government have come to his aid, and all the other weaklings in the government must submit. Now the poor Minister of Finance is in a pitiable position, having to hold up his hands to the Minister of Public Works and have them bound ; and having to promise that never hereafter will he preach the heretical doctrine of free trade.
1 For free trade was always a heresy, it was the most absurd doctrine that ever was promulgated, and no people but the English people could ever have been deceived and misled by that doctrine. Cobden's doctrine was based upon this absurd fallacy, that every man, woman and child in every other nation but England was a fool, an absolute fool, and would remain a fool until the, end of time. The doctrine of Oobden was upon this absurdity : We are going to take all the raw products of the world and manufacture them, and make all the money ; and we are going to keep all the rest of the world in the position of slaves and servants, doing our menial work for a mere subsistence, and no outsider will ever see through the game we are playing upon them. If that doctrine had been

propounded in Canada some one would have got up and said : You are mistaken, Mr. Cobden, there are other people in this world as bright as you ; we will establish manufactures, and sell our goods all over the earth, and your doctrine will go. It was an utterly unarguable fallacy, this doctrine of free trade, and it could have' overcome no other nation on earth excepting the English. I am of the same breed, I am an imperialist, and I want this distinctly understood, that I admire the traditions of England up to sixty years ago. They were a band of demi-gods, they conquered the earth for the highest purposes of civilization, and religion, of benefiting mankind ; but for the last sixty years, after that infamous doctrine, that weak and silly doctrine of Cobdenism came to the front, the whole country became weak and pusillanimous, and the English people who have believed in it are degenerates to the last man. But, Sir, the new doctrine, of imperialism, has spread over Canada and will yet make statesmen of hon. gentlemen opposite, no ipatter how narrow they may be to-day. That new doctrine will lift them up and exalt them, that doctrine will revivify the English people, and in a generation or two they will rule and dominate this earth again ; and every square mile of its territory will, eventually, I hope, be brought under the British flag. Hon. gentlemen may be uncredulous, but that is the destiny of the British flag, and if you read your bibles diligently, you will there find ample confirmation of the doctrine. All nations will come under it. I have no doubt that if you could get the Germans under the British flag for even one year they would never desire to go back under the German flag. All that is needed is for the different portions of the British empire to unite under the glorious British constitution in closest union for defence and offence if necessary, and for trade and commerce, then they will convert the whole world, and then we will have peace. Then the Prime Minister will not have to preach that heresy that commerce and war do not go together, because there will then be no necessity for war, for the whole earth will be under one flag, and all men will speak one language.
I was interested, in watching the demeanour, . of hon. gentlemen opposite, on hearing the news, that was flashed across the water to-day, that the British government had put a tax on bread stuffs. I naturally thought the First Miniver would come in here with a veil over his face. I thought the Minister of Finance would come in clothed in sackcloth and ashes. I thought that, being men of generous feeling, they would send a message over to the opposition and say : Gentlemen, we want to make you a full apology for all the heresies that we have been talking for the last few years ; we want to show to the people that we have some politeness, if we have not Mr. GOURLEY.
the good sense of the opposition. But what was my surprise, when these gentlemen got up and stated that this is not protection, this is no change at all, it is only a result of the war, it is only a war measure and will soon pass away. I think the hon. member for Welland also uttered that sentiment. The British government will return to a policy of free trade, he says, this will only last for a time. Nothing apparently could convince him. Sir, I am bound to tell you that so far as I understand this matter, the war has nothing to do with it, except as offering a convenient opportunity for the British government to retrace its steps, to abandon an erroneous course. For ten or twenty years the British government have been endeavouring to retrace their steps. Now we know what a prophet of public opinion Sir Charles Tupper is and has been. He went across this country telling us that public opinion in England was changing, that it was coming rapidly to the point at which it would retrace this false course, and impose protective duties. These gentlemen in the government went over to the other side and pretended to gauge public opinion there, they thought they had done so, and came back and told us that Britain would never do anything of the kind. It shows how incapable, gentlemen opposite, were to judge public opinion, and how far they were lacking, the keen insight that Sir Charles Tupper possessed of the trend of public opinion. I hope you will all do justice to that eminent Canadian, that father of Canada. He and Sir John A. Macdonald together made Canada. I hope you will get up to-day, and say to that father of confederation, that you have wronged him, wronged him seriously, by pretending to dispute, the accuracy of the prophecy which he made, that the English people were rapidly returning to the cause of protection.
I want the hon.	gentlemen	now
to take occasion by the hand.	The
English government have extended in a most polite and courteous way an invitation to these hon. gentlemen to go over and talk, not about the defence of the empire alone, but to sit down and consider how they can strengthen this empire. That is what we desire. I want Canada, from this moment, to take the position of being a portion of this empire, I desire this House of Commons to be a part of the imperial government. I want the British government to acknowledge that the House of Commons of Canada, in relation to all matters not affecting the mere domestic policy of the British Isles, is an integral part of the imperial government, and to call us in consultation whenever occasion requires. This idea of sending a half a dozen men over to England to represent us in the House of Commons or the House of Lords is a very immature suggestion. I want the powers of this House increased, not dimin-

ished. We sit here as a House of Commons in Canada, as a co-ordinate branch of the government of this empire, and the government in London have no right to arrogate to themselves the sole control of imperial affairs.
I fancy that the invitation which has been extended to us is in recognition of the principle that we, to-day, must be consulted in reference to all imperial questions, and what I understand by that invitation would be, that the Prime Minister should sit down with the imperial government and discuss that matter. What I believe the imperial government would want the right hon. gentleman to say would be this :	We, in Canada, are engaged with our great commercial interests, we have enormous territories to develop, but if you want us at any time, if you want the men of Canada to stand by you at any time, we can call out 100,000 or 200.000 troops and have them ready to take the field in two weeks. I can say that Canadians do not want more than a fortnight's drill to make them as good soldiers as you want on the field of battle. We need no standing army in this country, all we want, is to have money enough expended, to give the young men of this country an opportunty of drilling upon a fields for 20 or 30 days, every year, and I venture to say that on the field of battle they will distinguish themselves more than any soldiers of the line. The right hon. leader of the government, mixed up this question with another, and it was an unfair argument in the discussion of so vital a matter. Was it not an unfair argument, to attempt to mislead the people of Canada, into believing, that the government of England, wanted us to have a standing army, and that in exchange they would give us this preference in their tariff ? That is not thp intention of the English government, I am persuaded. All the English government want to know is that we are truly and sincerely interested in the welfare of the empire, and that we are prepared to fight for it in time of need. Now, in regard to my French friends


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have come here without a particle of feeling or prejudice. I am endeavouring to learn their beautiful language, and I propose some day to go down and hear the extraordinary speeches that are said to be made in the province from which these gentlemen come. I am a man with feeling but without race prejudices, and I propose to go down and discuss these questions before them. But, I want to say this to my French compatriots :	A few
leaders, who profess to speak for the French people, have misled us, by saying that the French population of Canada, would not be willing to fight for the empire. If there is any advice that I might be permitted to give my French compatriots it is, that they should take the opposite view. That is the only thing that affects the English opinion of Canada today. You must reflect that Canada occupies this curious position : For years there have been people in England who have openly advocated the idea that the colonies were not loyal, that they were anxious to break away from England. Thousands and millions of people have believed that doctrine and believe it to-day. Then, there was another, old belief, that when Canada was ripe, and when we had got all we could out of England, we wanted to become independent. These things militate against our position in England, and so much so, that the English people have treated us rather cavalierly. Then, the doctrine was propounded, that the French people, were not loyal to the British flag. The sending of the contingents, has helped in a great measure to refute the idea that we were not loyal to England and that we wanted independence. Because of the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the sending of these contingents-and I sympathise with every word that has been said-they were sent under circumstances that might possibly destroy their influence. They were sent under protest. Suppose a bill of exchange is returned under protest, it is very injurious to the credit of the persons concerned. It gave the feeling in England that there was something wrong with the loyalty of Canada. It was something that should have been spontaneous and generous and open. I want to say in reference to my French compatriots that they have an opportunity of doing a most unparalleled act. I believe that the French, in their own interest, should believe in imperialism, because they have more to gain from imperialism on this continent than even the English speaking people have. If it is not imperialism, it must be independence, or annexation, because we never can remain a little insignificant country. We must go in with England and embrace all the conditions attendant upon the existence of the empire with her traditions and her policy, or we must become independent, or be swept into the neighbouring states. Would the French people desire to be swept into the United States ? They would be absorbed and their traditions and institutions would be brushed aside in twenty-four hours. What would happen in the event of independence taking place ? The two races would be comparatively equal, and there would be a battle of the races. That would efface the prosperity of Canada, and this would go on until the United States would be bound to interfere to preserve the peace of the continent. But there is a magnificent prospect and a magnificent hope for the French people in imperialism. I believe that should they approach the imperial government and say : You have given us better laws and institu-

tions than old France itself would have done, we will go with you to the ends of the earth and fight in defence of the empire. The French would then be the dominant race on this continent in spite of the energies of the Anglo-Saxon people. That is the position the French people should assume, and they should be the first to declare in this House that: We are imperialists and the strongest of imperialists. I want the French people to declare to this country that the statement which has often been repeated that they will fight for Canada but that they will not fight for the empire is a heresy. Suppose England is attacked in India and beaten, it will mean that not only Canada but the whole empire is shattered, and youi will have no opportunity of fighting for Canada. The man who talks about fighting for Canada only talks about allowing our empire to be attacked and to be smashed. My doctrine is that I shall fight for the empire in the most distant parts of the world as readily as in my own town, were she attacked, and it should be for the French people to say that they will fight for the empire as readily in the most remote portions of the empire, as they would fight for their own province if it were attacked. If the right hon. the Prime Minister had moved in this House, a resolution declaring that the French and the English people, would stand side by side with the empire in its extremity in time of war and in time of peace, I am persuaded that the parliament and people of England would give us a preferential tariff in twenty-four hours. I charge, therefore, that the Prime Minister has not fulfilled that high duty, which should have been fulfilled by the first commoner of this country in attempting to subordinate national advantages to mere party advantages. I want to say one word in reference to what the right hon. gentleman said about bringing Canada into the vortex of war. I think that was a most unfortunate speech for the right hon. gentleman to make. If the empire is attacked in any part of the world, Canada is necessarily brought into the vortex of war, and when the right hon. gentleman used that language he attempted to separate Canada from the rest of the empire. I think it is unfortunate, I hope he did not mean it, but when he did make it, it struck me as an extraordinary statement for the leader of the government to make. Then he spoke of war and commerce. War must always go with commerce. Spain once ruled the commerce of the world. Why ? Because she swept the seas of every enemy. Later Holland swept the seas of the Spanish marine and she ruled the commerce of the world until England attacked Holland, swept her ships from the sea, and herself became mistress of the seas.
But a few years ago, and Africa was a savage continent, England wanted commerce to pervade that country in order that it should be divilized. Did she send her merchants there to be shot down ? No. She Mr. GOURLEY.
sent her soldiers, and she beat the Kaffirs and the Hottentots, and she controlled the savage tribes, and she made little settlements of peace, and built forts and then invited her merchants to trade under the protection of her guns. She did that until she civilized the country, and to-day in consequence of the numerous wars that have been waged for sixty years, Africa1 is now pretty well open for the commerce of the world. I stand here to-day to say that I do not want war-'but I do not want mean, cowardly, treacherous settlements, called peace. I do not want war, but I would prefer war, and high national sentiment, to prevail in this country, than peace with meanness and cowardice. No nation that lias not been martial has ever survived. No nation has ever lived a century after she has lost her martial spirit. Rome sat upon her seven hills and ruled the world. While the mothers and fathers of Rome taught their sons to fight the enemy, Rome ruled the world. But when the mothers ceased to teach their sons to battle in the distant parts of the empire, then the barbarian said :	This is not Rome; this is
not the glorious martial Rome that we knew, and they raided her and she disappeared. Let the martial spirit of a people relax and the nation is gone. The reason that the British empire came nearly going to pieces within the last few years, and sinking to be a third or fourth rate power, was because of the belief that the martial spirit of England had disappeared. Little fellows got up in Exeter Hall-every one of them should be beaten with stripes and if the English people had not lost their martial spirit they would have done it ; they got up and said that they cared not if a portion of the British territory was lost in South Africa. Cobden, or Gladstone, or * some person like that would figure out that it would cost $25,000,000 to defend our territory, but there was no commerce and no money making in it; and he would say :	Let them take our territory;
we will save the money. England had got down to that low level by this miserable Cobdenism. No nation can be great that figures tip on one side what it wall cost to preserve the national honour, and on the other what it will save to allow itself to be kicked around the world. A nation to be respected, the world over must be such a nation as was ancient Rome. If a Roman citizen in the farthest desert of Africa were attacked, his Roman citizenship protected him ; and the legions of Rome moved as fast as horses and legs could carry them to the extreme parts of the earth to punish the insult to Roman citizenship. Then, to be a citizen of Rome was a glorious thing. But later on you could kick a citizen of Rome as you could kick a negro in the southern states and nothing happened. Then Rome fell. English citizenship came to be nearly in the same position a few years ago. But, Sir, fortunately there were these giant

young nations of Australia and New Zealand and Canada growing up who would not stand an insult to the honour of England. The youth that are growing up in these young nations have no notion of being kicked, and not resenting the insult. I want my neighbours to the south to know that I live on this continent not by the sufferance of any Monroe doctrine, or by the sufferance of any Congress. I live here because I am prepared to fight for my existence if necessary. 1 went to Buffalo the other day, and a gentleman from one of the newspapers came to interview me. I said to him :	I am on your soil and I refuse to
speak aught of your country, but I have had my say in the parliament of my own country, where it was my duty to speak, and I said what I did say because I believe I would be negligent in my duty if I did not say it. He replied : If the Canadians had been like that for the last sixty years we would have more respect for you in Canada, but you permitted us to think that you were subservient, that you were only ready to jump into our lap. and we treated you with something of contempt. I want this House of Commons to declare that we have rights on this continent, because we are British subjects, and that no nation can curtail these rights. This parliament should deal with that Monroe doctrine. It is a menace to every respectable man in this country.
I was delighted to read the article of Mr. Justice Mills a few days ago. It proves that we have some men in, Canada who have spirit. He declared that the Monroe doctrine is absurd and he repudiates it as an insult and a menace to us in Canada I hope that some one in this parliament will start the Canadian doctrine. The Canadian doctrine would have more in it than the Monroe doctrine has. That Canadian doctrine is that the supervision of every foot of this continent belongs by right to Canada. And if any kind of Monroe doctrine prevails that doctrine is the one most tenable :	.That all other nations
who live on this continent are subservient to Canada. I believe, of course, that both doctrines are wrong, but if Monroeism is to be held as a pistol to our heads let us turn this doctrine on the other people. I am persuaded that preferential trade within the empire will come ; I am persuaded that it would come now if this Canadian government were not hostile to it. I am persuaded that we will have a preferential duty on our wheat, and if we have a preference of C cents pef bushel, then the population in the western states would shift in a night. We would find ourselves possessed of 10,000,00(1 or 15,000,000 of population that is now against us, and ^e would then be a great nation indeed. Recollect that the world to-day makes as much progress in six months as it did in 600 years a few centuries ago. The people of tiie west are not tied down as we are
in the east. They can take down their shacks and shift 100 miles without any trouble.
If we get a preference on our agricultural products in the British market, the star of yesterday would set in the south, and political power would rest in the north. From that moment it would be seen that the political power of this continent would be in Canada ; that we were to be the Russia of America, and that national glory would be centered in Ottawa and not in Washington.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The achievement of this great purpose is opened to the government of Canada at the present moment. I adjure these gentlemen opposite to throw away petty politics suoh as the member for Welland and the Minister of the Interior dealt with.
I adjure them that they cease to introduce such petty things into the politics of this nation. I say to the right hon. the Prime Minister :	Go to the Imperial government
and say to them :	We will stick by you;
give us this preference and we will build up a Canadian nation in a few years, that will defy all your enemies on this continent or on any other.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: If I could bring myself from the heights of the rhetoric to which we have just listened, down to the ordinary level of the earth, I would like to discuss this question from a somewhat business and practical standpoint. There would of course be no discussion in this House to-day were it not that a duty has been imposed on certain foodstuffs by the government of Great Britain. Let me ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) if he really believes what he has said. He has proven to his own satisfaction that Britain has been a nation of fools for sixty years back, but at the same time he insists that the British flag is going to wave over the whole world, and that in consequence the world is to be governed by this nation of fools. That is most extraordinary reasoning. If the people of Great Britain have been fools for sixty years, they have accumulated more money and impressed themselves more on the world than all the wise people who have lived since history came to be written. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gourley) thinks they are fools because they adopted a certain trade policy, and he tells us that the British people have lost their martial spirit. Well, Sir, the British people have fought in Russia; they have fought in India; they have fought in Africa; and during the last sixty years they have shown the same martial spirit as did their ancestors of old. But the member for Colchester calls them a nation of idiots because they adopted free trade. What a strange idea he has of what a nation should be They are down to the low, ordinary, eveiy-

day life of commerce ; and if they kept the sword in one hand to pierce any man who did not trade with them, whether savage or Christian, with goods in the other, they would be all right. A distinguished member of parliament once said that that was Britain's business-to engage in war continually to force the uncivilized and unclothed savages of Africa to buy her products. The truth is, Great Britain is taxing an article which it cannot raise itself. Let hon. gentlemen consider that what wheat is raised in Great Britain will only feed the people of Great Britain for seven weeks in the year; so that for Gfreat Britain to raise a war tax on flour is just the same as it would be for us to raise a tax on tea. It is the quickest way to get a revenue, and every dollar of the tax will go into the revenue. Then how can any hon. gentleman opposite shout that there is a prospect of Great Britain becoming protectionist, which she never will ? Where would Canada stand if she taxed everything we sent there ? Some gentlemen shout that Great Britain ought to be protectionist when, if they thought for a moment, they would know that it would mean the destruction of Canada if Great Britain acted as Canada does. Even if we had a preference within the empire, which hon. gentlemen opposite talk about, I for one do not see that it would be an unmixed blessing, because if we go to make a contract with Great Britain she will insist that we take from her the articles which she produces. In that case, what would become of the people of Canada who want protection ? But I can understand that larger relations may exist which would require such conditions to be borne by us for the furtherance of the empire. But there is one thing more which 1 want to call the attention of the House to. Is this discussion for the purpose of giving information to the Prime Minister before his departure for the old country ? If so, I submit that the wise heads of the other side of the House, if they love the empire as they profess to do, should dictate to the Prime Minister by writing down their thoughts.
Is this discussion to be for his instruction ? Then he ought to be instructed before hand. I was pleased with what the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) said. He said two unkind things in a very kindly way. He said this discussion should not have taken place, and that notice should have been given of it. I agree with him. But he said one of the most unkind things when he lectured the French, and told them what imperialism they should follow. He did not consult with the second leader or he would not have said what he did The hon. gentleman forgot that the very gentleman who got up this discussion had said in his paper that what the second leader of the opposition had said would have to be withdrawn, or he would be read out of the


Duncan Cameron Fraser: party. How well these hon. gentlemen agree. The truth of the matter is that we cannot be up in the clouds in discussing this matter. We have to deal with conditions as they exist. We must consider Great Britain, not as of carrying a flaming torchlight procession, abandoning the trammels of free trade, and becoming a mighty nation, killing the naked savages and extending her sway all over the world. This I submit is vain vaporing. What we want to consider here is what is best for Canada's progress ? I thoroughly agree with what the Prime Minister has said. The taunt of the world against Great Britain hos been that she has been aggressive in war for the purpose of gaining territory.
I do not admit it; but I say that she has always succeeded in planting all that is best in civilization when she has ceased war and engaged in commerce. The hon. member for Colchester was very unfortunate in his references. He said, look at .Spam, where is Spain now ? She never knew how to colonize. She always went to a country and throttled its inhabitants.
Mr. GOUIiLEY. She allowed herself to get beaten.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: She was beaten before she was beaten, if I might use an Irishism, if the hon. gentleman had read history he would know that when Sir John Moore was m Spain he found that the men who were sent to assist him gave him no assistance and could not give him any. This was the great nation the hon. gentleman wanted to hold up as an example for Great Britain-a nation that could not hold her colonies.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I referred to the fact that she was beaten at the time of the Armada.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: The hon. gentleman must not torget that she colonized a great deal after that. She lost a number of ships at that time certainly ; but that did not break her. it the hon. gentleman's argument was any good, she ought to be all-powerful to-uay. Why, she had twice as many ships as the British fleet and was a better army in every way. Yet, still our little boats-many of them pirate vessels-that came out of every inlet in England, defeated this nation, great as it was, and wealthy and powerful in colonies. I am as ready as any one here to stand up for the empire, but while I think that we should consider the glory of Britain as our own and never see her with her back to the wall without coming to her help, I am not going to say that each individual should not be at liberty to make up his mind as he chooses on this great question of the relations between Canada and the mother country. We will never make Canada what it ought to be if we begin in this

nineteenth century to fetter men's minds and prevent them working out their destiny in the way they consider best. What is imperialism ? I claim that it is a misnomer. We are a colony of Great Britain, with all the rights of the British nation and a free people. Imperialism might have suited ancient Rome, but it is out of place in this nineteenth century. What we want is that every man in the empire shall do his work as a law-abiding citizen, and be ready to combine with his fellow-citizens in helping the mother country whenever she requires the assistance of the strong arms of her children in the colonies. But I do not believe in a man shouting continually about his mother and his loyalty and his flag and his readiness to die. I do not believe in a man who is continually flaunting his loyalty any more than in a woman who is continually vaunting her virtue. The bravest and best men are ready to die for their country, if required, but are not given to saying much about it. Take this young man, who the other day brought glory not only on Canada but on humanity-the quiet school master. Day after day, lie went among his boys, he was not a fighting man, but an unpretentious youth, who never made a wild speech, who never wakened up the echoes with that wretched spread eagleism which we have imported from the nation to the south of us, but who went about his duties quietly. Yet when the test came, he met the supreme issue like a man. If we shout less and go about quietly and sensibly doins cur duty, we will make better citizens and show better results.
As to this country joining Great Britain in anything relating to war, although I am fairly loyal, I for one do not want anything of the kind. And let me tell the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, that a greater missionary field lies before him on the other side, and that he will find there more difficulty in converting to his views men who hold high positions than he thinks. He tells us that he is learning the language of his recalcitrant brethren who refuse to join him, and I am sure that when his lofty and convincing eloquence is expressed in the musical language of his confreres from the province of Quebec, they will be unable to resist his persuasive influence, and, beginning with the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), we will find them giving way in succession before his convincing tones, and we may hope to have a united, though not necessarily an Imperial Canada.
I do not propose giving any advice to the right hon. the First Minister. In the first place, I do not think I could give him very much advice ; and in the second place he has had so much freely given to him that I would not like to increase the dose. I was glad to see my right hon. friend apparently oblivious of much of the advice so freely showered on him by hon. gentlemen opposite. There is one thing which the hon. .
member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) said which I can endorse, and that is that there is too great a tendency to treat this matter as a purely party question. But I would suggest to him that the spirit and the manner in which it has been brought up today furnish ample subject for his criticism. If we were really moved by patriotic interests, we would get together and give our best views about all this. But the whole intention evidently is to try and hold the Prime Minister and the government responsible in certain quarters and endeavour to snatch a small victory by saying that it was the course taken by this government which induced the British government to put a duty on wheat. But I venture to make the prediction that this duty is only transitory. The nations of the world are moving, though not perhaps as quickly as we would like, in the direction of a freer interchange of trade. Even the people to the south of us have shown that they sometimes can rise above the wretched, effete system of protection, and deal with their fiscal policy in a more rational spirit. I am not, however, going to brush away protection as jauntily as my hon. friend from Colchester brushes away free trade, by calling those who differ from me fools. That would bar me out from associating with some hon. gentlemen on the other side, whose good feeling and good qualities I appreciate very much. But I believe that as our means of transportation are quickened by land and sea, the true principles governing trade will make themselves more and more felt. It is as absolutely impossible for one nation to shut out another as it is to stem the course of the St. Lawrence with a broom. We cannot go on living on past ideas. I remember thirty years ago when in Nova Scotia we knew very little about Canada. It was very hard to get up there. But when our means of communication were improved and we came to know more about it, we not only knew the people of the upper provinces better but did all we could to increase our business with them. I hope my hon. friend will continue his studies in the French language, and perhaps he will succeed in converting those Who are in darkness on his own side, and get them to join with him in his noble missionary work of bringing the whole world into the fold of Britain's power.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: I wish, Mr. Speaker, to allude more particularly to a statement of the hon. the leader of the opposition, who, I am sorry is not in his seat just now. I refer to his statement regarding what my hon. colleague the Finance Minister has said with reference to the question of preferential trade. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition charged my hon. colleague with having expressed the opinion that at no time would the British government place

Great Britain would not receive them ? This is what the hon. gentleman said :
The reply which the Chamber of Commerce received from the Prime Minister was, as stated in this House, that the time for receiving ihis deputation was not opportune, it was not opportune because at that time the South African campaign was at its height : the war in China *was also at its height ; there was a very important session of the Imperial parliament in progress, which took up the time and attention cf the Prime Minister and his colleagues ; and the country was on the eve of an election. I can quite easily understand, therefore, and I think hon. members will agree with me, that under these conditions it was inopportune for ihe Prime Minister to receive such a deputation, especially in view of the fact that the discussion on this question being one which enters largely into the politics of Great Britain, his reception of the deputation might be interpreted to mean that the Imperial government were about to adopt a protective policy, and this might cause their deteat in the elections which were about to take place.
If ever there was a statement made in this House that would show that the feeling in England was not ripe for such a change, this is that statement. Lord Salisbury would not even receive a deputation requesting the appointment of a royal commission. Why ? The hon. gentleman says there was the war in South Africa. But everything does not stand still in England because of a war in South Africa. The hon. gentleman says that the Prime Minister had many important things to do. But there is never a time when the Prime Minister of England and his colleagues have not important things to do. But the hon. gentleman (Mr. Kemp) gives us the secret. This was on the eve of a general election. And, what was the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Kemp's) own personal idea of the thought in Lord Salisbury's mind. It was that if he received the deputation, even though they asked for nothing more than a royal commission, it might be interpreted by the country as indicating that they were about to adopt a protective policy, and that would secure their defeat. What must have been tbe sentiment in England, according to the estimation of the hon. gentleman, when he tells us that the Prime Minister would not even receive this deputation ? The Prime Minister virtually said to them : Do not come near me; if I were seen in the company of men who had such requests to make, I should not be able to remain in power. Yet the hon. gentleman comes to this House to-day with the most complete assurance, as if it was the simplest thing in the world and that any one might have known that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would take this action. Now, let me point out to hon. gentlemen opposite one thing. And I enter upon this in no partisan spirit. I am one who believes that it would be a good thing to have preferential trade, if we can get it; and I have never taken the ground that
it could not be got, but have spoken m the same strain as the Finance Minister did.
I have always taken the ground that if it ever was to come about, one of the great inducing reasons for it would be the voluntary act of this parliament when they gave a preference to the British people. The hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Bennett), if I understood the extract he read from the Montreal 1 Star,' read it as showing that members of the British House were calling upon Sir Michael Hicks-Beach to give us that preference now, because we had given them a preference in our tariff, proving conclusively the fact that our action was having its influence. Now, we did not huckster with the people of England, and we are strong in the affections of that people at the present time, and our action has influenced them in their individual commercial dealings with this country to a vast extent. I believe it is influencing them politically, and all the more so because it was given unasked, without any attempt, as the Minister of Finance said, at bargaining or huckstering. They talk about the Prime Minister saying that he did not go over there to ask them to impose a protective duty upon bread stuffs. Things are in a different position now, and unuer the influence of our preferential tariff English feeling has beeu moulded in a measure. While they have not been asked by this government to put on a grain duty, they have done it in their own interests and for their own reasons. Those duties being on, it may be that later they will desire to lower them in order to ease the burden which must fall upon their people. I will not attempt to say how the burden will be eased. I have heard this question of protection and free trade disj cussed enough in this House to know that you cannot lay down any straight line as to who pays the duty in every case and under all circumstances. But I say there will be some burden upon the English people from the fact that they do not produce as much breadstuffs as they require. But if the government wished to ease their burden, if they thought it was in the interest of the people, it would be an easier matter for them to do it now that they have imposed a slight protection for their own purposes, and without being asked to do it by the colouies ; they could ease the burden on their own people by enacting a law that so far as the colonies were concerned the tax should not be operative. There are other questions no doubt that will weigh with them. They wilt have to consider the effect upon the rest of the world. They will have to consider how giving a preference to their colonies will affect the feelings and actions of other nations. But the duty having now been imposed, it changes the position of the question which the Prime Minister will have to discuss, and he will find himself in a somewhat different position to what he was

when he went there before, when England had imposed no duties whatever upon bread-stuffs.
But the idea of hon. gentlemen opposite undertaking to lecture this government for neglecting the interest of the country ! The idea of these gentlemen rising, as they have done this afternoon, and professing that they are the guardians of the interests of this country, that if they were in power now they would immediately cable this very night to the old country and secure a preference ! Sir, I do not wish to refer to a past debate, but the newspapers inform me that in the Canadian parliament there was a resolution proposed by the leader of the opposition not long ago, and endorsed by his followers. That resolution declared emphatically that if they were in power they would so arrange their tariff that not one dollar's worth of British goods should come into this country in any shape or form, while at the same time they declared for a preferential tariff. Do hon. gentleman deny it ? I say that their resolution, as Interpreted by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) and other gentlemen, meant to shut out all goods that could be produced in this country. Every one knows that was the position they took, and I ask the leader of the opposition to give to the Prime Minister when he goes over a list of articles that he can offer to the British public in return for their admission of our products free.


Adam Carr Bell: Would the hon. gentleman allow me ? \vas not that coupled with a proposal for preferential trade ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Yes. If I may be pardoned for referring to a past debate


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I think it is perfectly in order for an hon. member to make reference to a past debate in the form of an illustration, but he is not allowed to discuss the matter.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: The resolution was printed in the newspapers, and hon. gentlemen will see it there :
This House regarding the operation of the present_ tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures, and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians. And, while thus firmly maintaining the necessity of such protection to Canadian interests, this House affirms its belief in a policy of reciprocal trade preference within the empire.
That is, while imposing this policy of adequate protection which, as interpreted by hon. gentlemen opposite, was to keep Canada for the Canadians aud to shut out everything from other countries that could be pro-


Hon. Mr. PATERSON.: duced in Canada, they were willing to accept preferential trade. They are on record. Suppose the Prime Minister goes over to England, and he is asked to state the position occupied by hon. gentlemen opposite. He would be told by English statesmen, Now we have Imposed a duty of three pence per hundred weight on grain and five pence per hundred weight on flour, and you nsk us to allow the colonial article in free. Then the Prime Minister would say : The opposition instructed me that they were anxious that you should let our grain m free. They will say to him : Did chey give jou any instructions as to what you would allow us in return for that ? Well, nothing further than that they adopted a resolution that they believed in raising the Canadian tariff so high as to secure the Canadian market to Canadians in every line, and that they would maintain that tariff as against Britain, though they want to have preferential trade relations with you. The Englishmen will say to the Prime Minister : TVill you please tell us what articles we produce that you cannot produce in Canada ? The Prime Minister will say : If I must tell you honestly, I do not know that there is a single article you produce that cannot be produced in Canada under the adequate protection which the opposition have declared is essential, that is, a protection that will exclude every dollar's worth of your goods from the Canadian market. I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to state where there is an article produced in the United Kingdom that cannot he produced in Canada under an adequate protection. Their resolution is on record, and that is their position.
For these hon. gentlemen to rise and instruct the Prime Minister that he is to go over there and support something that he does not consider in the public interest is certainly going very far. We are in the position that the Prime Minister is going over there without his hands tied by the resolution of hon. gentlemen opposite for there was not a member on this side of the House who supported that resolution which these hon. gentlemen have made, claiming that it is a preference they want, by which they would tie his hands so that he could not ask the British government to give a cent of preference to Canada In any shape or form. It would be worse than an insult to Great Britain to say : We want a preference in your market, and then to take the position, as their resolution is interpreted by their speeches and by the frequent * hear, hears ' of hon. gentlemen opposite, of saying : While we want a preference we have pledged ourselves that we will have such adequate protection as would exclude all goods from the Canadian market that you produce. It is an insult to the British government to make any such proposition and I think if hon. members opposite were to go over there charged with the duty of negotiating, this is the position they would

find themselves in. I rejoice for the well being of Canada that the Prime Minister does not go over there shackled by any such resolution. He voted against it, as did other hon. gentlemen on this side of the House, and he goes over there to confer with the imperial authorities and the other colonial authorities, to talk over matters and to see if by some means there can be arrangements made by which, through concessions on the part of one and concessions on the part of the other, trade with the empire can be promoted. To the credit of the Liberal party, the position which they took a few years ago lias been a large factor, I have no doubt, in bringing about a state of feeling in Great Britain that is favourable to Canada at the present time, and I hope that there will be an arrangement effected that will redound to the benefit of all parts of the empire and to this Canada of ours. Certain I am of one thing and it is that there is a possibility, if not a probability, that under the position occupied by the party opposite there would not be a shadow of a possibility of obtaining any preference, because, according to the terms of that resolution of the hon. leader of the opposition, these hon. gentlemen have pledged themselves that they will have such adequate t protection that Canada shall be kept for tlie Canadians and that no foreign products shall be allowed to come in. I say then that it is rather strange to hear hon. gentlemen opposite rising and lecturing this side of the House and the government as if we had neglected our duty, as if these hon. gentlemen were not in a position of having no hope of obtaining one iota of a preference from the British government though professing an expectation of being able to secure it.


Adam Carr Bell: Mr. Speaker, I observe that the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) says that the decision which this House placed on record quite recently


The PRIME MINISTER.: Orddr, order. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) has spoken.


Peter Macdonald: The hon. gentleman has spoken.


An hon. MEMBER.: Not on this question.


The MINISTER OE FINANCE.: This is the only question before the House.


Peter Macdonald: The only question before the House is that I do leave the Chair, and the hon. gentleman has spoken on that.
Hon. JOHN HAGGART (South Lanark), Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate as I was not in the House when the motion was brought up, or, not the motion, because I believe it is only a statement of a grievance on going
into committee of supply made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean), but from the tone of the debate I have been able to follow the question which has been brought forward. Prom what I can learn the hon. member for East York made the statement in the House that the government have neglected their opportunities in not having made an effort to secure preferential trade with the mother country. It struck hon. gentlemen opposite as if a thunderbolt had fallen from a clear sky when they read in the papers this morning that their cherished doctrine of free trade which they believed would not be altered in Great Britain for fifty or sixty years to come had been changed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the introduction of his budget by the imposition of duties on corn and flour going into Great Britain. We warned hon. gentlemen opposite again and again that public opinion in England was changing. The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he went to Great Britain made the statement that we wanted no preference in the markets of the mother country, that we made the gift of the preferential entry of their goods into our country without expecting any return for it. Any man who has followed public opinion in Great Britain, not perhaps as it is indicated by the public utterances of men, but who has been familiar with public sentiment, knows that the Colonial Secretary was in favour of a preferential arrangement between the different colonies and the mother country. No more fatal blow was struck at the prospect of obtaining that advantage for this country than was directed by the Prime Minister when he was in England. These hon. gentlemen state now that they were always in favour of getting a preference. Yes, the right hon. gentleman has said that in the House before and we know that in one of his platform speeches in the west at a public meeting he said that he would obtain a preference, or at least try to obtain one within a week or two if he got in and that he would go over to Great Britain to try and obtain it. Did he carry out his promise ? No. His first utterances when he landed in England were not such as to promote the obtaining of that preference but were the very opposite in their effect. He struck such a blow that Mr. Chamberlain and others who were prepared to help the cause of protection to the colonies dare not do it. The premier of the largest colony in the British empire was evidently determined to appear as a believer in the free trade principles which were advocated by Gladstone and Cobden. He was determined to show that he was a free trader up to the hilt, as my hon. friend says, and he received a medal from the Cobden Club in England. Whether they deceived him or he deceived them I cannot tell. Were not his first utterances and actions on landing in England bound to lead the people of Eng-


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: While you are on that line, I wish you would mention a few of the articles that will be produced in England and that cannot be produced here.


John Graham Haggart: I can furnish you with a list of two or three thousand. Take drugs, for instance. Nearly the whole pharmacopoeia can be manufactured in the country, but would it pay to manufacture them ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That is not the question.


John Graham Haggart: It is the question. The question is whether articles which enter into the general consumption of the country can be manufactured as well in this country as in a foreign country. It is the duty of the government to protect these as manufacturing industries. But, let me ask : What industries are the government willing to sacrifice in the arrangement which the Minister of Customs proposes to make with the imperial authorities ? Is it the woollen industry ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: We do not propose to sacrifice any.


John Graham Haggart: But the hon. gentleman says that he was willing to make such an arrangement with the imperial authorities as would increase our imports from that country in return for a preference in their market.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: That was the statement of the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: No.


John Graham Haggart: In carrying out [DOT]that arrangement, what Canadian manufactures is he going to sacrifice ?


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: It is not uecessary to sacrifice any.


John Graham Haggart: Then you cannot come to any such arrangement as that at ail. We on this side have charged the government that they neglected to embrace the opportunity which was at their disposal to get preferential trade. The Prime Minister and every one of his supporters said that it could not be obtained. Well, it is possible to obtain it now. The right hon. gentleman is going to discuss our commercial relations when he gets to the old country. But he has stopped discussion on all political questions, and on all questions of imperial defence which are so intimately connected with our commercial relations that he will not be able to accomplish anything. He has given a death blow to everything in the shape of the furtherance of imperial ends, by that answer of his to the imperial authorities. We want the despatches. We want the despatch which the Colonial Secretary sent to Lord Minto, and we want the answer of this government to that despatch. These are not down. I draw your attention to these words :
With a view to the proposed conference, hope your piomier will he able to remain for a short time, say three weeks, after the ceremony, as the guest of His Majesty's government. Please telegraph reply. Despatch follows.
We would like to get that despatch.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I may say to mj hon. friend that there is no despatch. Though it was stated that a despatch was coming, it has never come.


John Graham Haggart: I was judging by the telegram, which seems to me to be a very short one. The despatch must have been countermanded, because when the Colonial Secretary received the reply of the right hon. gentleman, that ended all communications with the government on that subject. I do not wonder that he sent no more despatches.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The reply was so satisfactory to the British government that they did not need to say anything more. -


John Graham Haggart: It was so satisfactory that they had no further communication on the subject. There is no chance for a despatch now. All chance for negotiation is very likely at an end. When the British government received the reply of the right hon. gentleman to the despatch,
that ended all hope of any intercolonial arrangements, either as defence or the political relations of the colonies to the empire, or even as to their commercial relations.


The PRIME MINISTER.: What are the dates ?


John Graham Haggart: The telegram of the Colonial Secretary is the 23rd of January, and the reply of the government here is the 3rd of February. We have no despatch, there is an end to the communications altogether, and the right hon. gentleman will simply be a pageant at the Coronation show, and no political results will follow from what ought to be the best and brightest opportunity that was ever offered to a people to accomplish their wishes and wants.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Statistical Year-book, $i,000.
Mr. CLANCY.: The hon. minister was to give us some details as to how the distribution of this book was made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The Year-book is distributed to mechanics' institutes, to the press, and to the public libraries in the country. A number are also sent to libraries and different offices in England : also to boards of trade and similar public institutions, and of late years a certain number have been distributed to members of the House. The distribution of the book has been materially increased of late.


James Clancy: I think that is precisely the information which the hon. gentleman gave us on a former occasion. What he was asked to do, and what he promised to do, was to give the committee the number distributed in each case.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I asked for that information from the statistician, but I am afraid I have not got the paper here.


Mr. INGRAM.: One class of institution which I think ought to be supplied with these books are the collegiate institutes, which have a special commercial course, in which the students deal largely with the trade and navigation returns of Canada and other countries. I would suggest that the hon. gentleman's department supply the book to the different collegiate institutes.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know how many collegiate institutes there are. I believe they are pretty widely distributed throughout the province of Ontario, and if we distributed the book to these we would have to send it to the corresponding educational establishments in the other provinces. Will the hon. gentleman give me an idea of the number of them, and if we have a sufficient number

of the books on band, I shall be glad to distribute them to these institutions.


Andrew B. Ingram: I cannot speak for the other provinces, but in the province of Ontario I do not think there would be more than one to each riding.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the number were not more than one to every riding of the Dominion we would have a supply sufficient for them, and I would be very glad to see that this was done.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many did you issue last year ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 5,000	were ordered last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How many were distributed to members ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There is no fixed number. The members who asked for them received, in some cases, as many as ten, but generally four or five.


James Clancy: Was there no rule as to the number ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: There was no special rule, but four or five were usually given each member who wanted them. Many did not ask for them.


James Clancy: Then those who were a little modest came out rather short. It is well to know that we can have a dozen if we want them.
Mr.! HUGHES (Victoi'ia). Why was not a certain number distributed to each member ? I did not ask for any, how many did I get ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I presume you got none.


Samuel Hughes: Every member should get a certain number, as in the case of other blue-books.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This is not sent out in the way the blue-books are. It is not published by an order of this House, but by the Department of Agriculture. The other blue-books are published and distributed by the order of the House, but this is published on an entirely different system as it always has been.


Samuel Hughes: This vote is an order to publish this book, and every member should have one or two sent him, and the hon. minister who refuses to send these out is derelict in his duty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I got three or four copies, which were all that was available. I would like, to have had some more because a number of the school teachers like to get them.


William Rees Brock: I am protesting continually when I receive by mail the enormous amount of literature published toy order of this House. This costs the country a great Hon. Mr. FISHER.
many hundreds of thousands of dollars. It is very difficulty to ask a minister to cut down his expenses, when public documents are sent so lavishly about. I get from the Department of Agriculture every year an enormous number of reports, which I am supposed to distribute amongst my agricultural constituents, but except a few dealers in bananas, I do not know of any agriculturalists in my constituency. Each member has stacks of this kind of stuff sent him which he is not able to utilize. My office is filled up with these publications. I have no time to read them nor do I know of any idle people who have. Hundreds of thousands of dollars must be thus unnecessarily expended in almost every department, and a great deal of the matter is published in French. I would like gentlemen on the other side to assist the members of the government in saving half a million dollars in this item. Of course under the same heading comes the enormous expenditure on 1 Hansard.' If you would discontinue the publication of ' Hansard,' you would have shorter speeches and fewer of them, and you could get through an amount of business in two months which now takes four months. A committee should be appointed to take the whole matter into consideration with a view of cutting down the expenditure.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. For the information of my hon. friend I may say that the Joint Committee on Printing of both Houses has appointed a sub-committee to look into those matters. We are getting statistics, and the sub-committee is to report to the Joint Committee, which in its turn will report to the House. I am sorry that the hon. gentleman thought proper to take objection to the publications printed in French.


William Rees Brock: That is not what I intended.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: I received three or four copies of the Year-book and was very glad indeed to get them. It is a very useful publication for school teachers and much sought after by them. With regard to the printing of the House, I am glad to endorse the remarks of my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock). I could not cart away all the publications I received and which I do not read. We are furnished with two reports of each department. These are big books, and I find my library growing so that I scarcely have a place to put the stuff. When I cannot use it or give it away, it becomes waste material. Therefore, I think the suggestion of the hon. member is in the right direction, and that by reducing the cost of turning out and distributing these publications we shall be able to affect a considerable saving.


Samuel Hughes: The Statistical Year-book has been regarded for many years as, one of the most useful publications turned out by the government. I maintain that

it should be in every school of any importance in Canada. I took that position in this House ten years ago and have maintained it every year since. If twice as many copies of this book were sent out and fewer of the trash of question and answer and long-winded stuff of the Agricultural Committee, matter that is being sent out by the ton, but not half of it distributed-and nobody would read it if he got it-the country would be better served, and there would be less drain upon the treasury.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I can hardly allow that statement to go without answer. I believe that the distribution of the evidence taken in the Agricultural Committee is of very great value indeed, particularly when distributed in the form of bulletins as has been done for a few years past. These small pamphlets are read when the larger volume printed at the end of the year would not be so carefully perused. I believe that many members representing agricultural constituencies find a means of distributing these small volumes without taking up a great deal of time. I know I have found no difficulty in getting rid of any that have been sent to me, and 1 am sure that I could dispose of double the quantity.


William Rees Brock: You may have mine.


David Henderson: I understand my hon. friend from Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) to say that I may have his. I should thank him very kindly if he will forward them to my address at Acton. 1 can make good use of them, and I presume he will not require any further reminder. My plan for distributing them is this :	For example, I get,
let us say sixty copies of the evidence of Professor Robertson before the Agricultural Committee. I do these up in parcels containing eight or ten copies each and address them to postmasters at rural points where 1 am satisfied they will take considerable interest in handing them out to persons who call for their mail. It is not necessary to address each one separately. 1 have followed that up by asking the farmers if they have received these bulletins, and have found that they did, proving that the documents went into the hands of people who would make good use of them. I am satisfied that a great deal of information given in the way of question and answer is more readily grasped by the agriculturists than if it were contained in a more closely written volume. I would not like to see a closer limit put upon these publications, for I regard them as very useful and helpful to those to whom they are sent.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the attacks made upon him in the House and in the press of the country with regard to the accuracy of publications issued by his department. The minister is responsible for those publications and can-89
not shelter himself behind officers of his department. I notice that he takes considerable credit to himself in the latter portion of his report for the large distribution of this work-I refer to the Statistical Year-book-throughout the country. If this book is not more accurate than some of the newspapers supporting the government-even personal organs of ministers, if all tales be true-have said, the fewer copies of it that are distributed the better. If my hon. friend from South Ontario (Mr. Ross) wants the teachers to know how our country is progressing, he had better not send them the Statistical Year-book, if statements made by members of the Treasury Benches are to be believed. A Minister of the Crown has gone so far as to say that a gentleman who refers to the Statistical Year-book for facts relating to this country is led into a trap. Does the Minister of Agriculture ask us to vote his salary, when be has not a word to say in support of a publication from his department that is thus characterized by one of his own colleagues, and by the press sup-, porting the government of which he is a member ? I expected the minister, when this item came up, to say something about these charges and to defend this publication of his even against the attacks of his colleagues. But we hear no word from him, and are left to guess as best we may whether the attacks are well founded or not. Members of this House have a right to look to a publication sent out by the Minister of Agriculture as a document worthy to be believed ; but, if we are to believe the allegations to which I have referred, this is an absolutely unreliable publication and any hon. gentleman who refers to it and bases an argument upon it is regarded by members of the government as being led into a trap. In other words, the hon. gentleman's colleagues tell him that this book issued by this department is a trap of misinformation to the people of this country. Yet, though he has heard these charges for the last two or three weeks, the minister has not a word to say in the defence of his department or of this publication. Knowing the hon. minister as I do, I would have expected him to be as loyal to his officials as he would expect his officials to he loyal to him. This book does not purport, so far as a considerable part of the information concerned in it is concerned, to be anything more than an estimate. Yet, we do not expect Ministers of the Crown will he in a position to rise in this House and say that gentlemen who refer to this book published by the Minister of Agriculture are being led into a trap. I do not suppose that those who have made .this charge understand how they reflect upon the Minister of Agriculture, and, apparently, the Minister of Agriculture himself does-not understand the seriousness of the charge made against him and against his department. Otherwise when he was asking for $4,000 to publish this work dur-



iug the ensuing year he would have something to- say about the matter.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I must confess frankly that I have never undertaken, as minister, to examine every detail of the information contained in this book, and to verify it. I believe that is the duty of the officers who are entrusted with the work of compiling this book, and the hon. gentleman must know that no Minister of the Crown can be expected to go through the drudgery that such work would enta'il. I regret to say that discoveries have been made of inaccuracies in this book, and of figures which do not agree with each other. I have only to say to the leader of the opposition and to the committee, that I trust such inaccuracies will not take place any more. The Year-book is a compilation from the blue-books which are issued from the various departments, it is -compiled by officers of the department, and it is their duty to see that it is accurate, that the transcription of figures is ' correctly done, and that nothing appears in it at variance with the facts. That such things should appear in it is certainly a reflection upon the department and upon the officers who have charge of the work. 1 realize that as political head of the department, I must shoulder the responsibility for the mistakes.


Andrew B. Ingram: Do I understand from the hon. gentleman that his officers are not competent to prepare this book ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have always supposed them to be competent, and I still suppose them to be competent. If they do not carry out their duty it will be my duty to see that they do so in future.


William Ross: I would not have it understood that I am opposed to the publication of the agricultural report. I happen to be a member of that committee, and I find its work extremely interesting and instructive. I am sure the reports which go out from that committee must be interesting and instructive to the farmers. I find great pleasure in distributing those reports, and I find the farmers receive them gladly. It is some of the other reports which do not seem to be of interest to anybody. I am sorry to learn from the discussion which has occurred to-night that there should be anything wrong with the Year-book. I think we should have such a Year-book, and that it should go into the hands of every teacher in this country for use in the schools. I think it would be a good move to put it into the hands of every teacher, showing the growth of the country and the growth of its business.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not want my hon. friend to understand that I am reflecting upon the Year-book in any way. I quoted from it, and I believe that what I quoted was correct. I have no fault to find Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
with it at all. I was calling the attention of the Minister of Agriculture to the reflections which have been cast upon this book not from this side but from the other Side of the House, and from the Liberal press of this country. The only thing that surprised me was that the Minister of Agriculture did not see fit, after the matter was brought to his attention, to make some defence of his own publication while the item was passing.
Hon. Mr. ItOSS (Victoria, N.S.) My objection to the Year-book is its shabby appearance. I do not call it a Year-book at all, it is not bound, and I consider that a book giving information of the Dominion of Canada should have a respectable appearance. There is a Year-book published by the colony of New Zealand for the year 1901, which contains twenty times the information that our Year-book contains. There is nothing in our Year-book but dry details and figures which very few men in this House or out of it will ever read. The New Zealand Year-book is beautiful and interesting, and contains 'information of great interest and value concerning that colony, and I would like to see our Year-book made something like it.


David Henderson: I am sorry the Minister of Agriculture neglected our esteemed friend in the distribution of these beautiful volumes such as I hold in my hand. I am surprised that the member for Victoria N.S. (Hon. Mr. Ross) has not seen this beautiful volume; I hope he has no objection to it because it is red. I do not put such confidence in our Year-book as the leader of the opposition does. I confess that I rarely quote from it, or rarely take any information from it without first verifying it. I regret to be obliged to say that there are two or three tables in that Year-book that should not be in it. I believe there are tables put in there for a political purpose. When hon. gentlemen sat on this side of the House years ago, they accused the Conservative party of compiling this Year-book with a political object. Well, if they were guilty at that time, I do not think the hon. gentlemen are less guilty to-day. I will draw the attention of the minister to one table in this book which I hope will be amended next year, because there is not a word of truth in it from top to bottom. It would be unfortunate to place such a book in the hands of our school children. I call attention to the table on page 481 of the Year-book for 1899, which I got from the library a few moments ago. It is a table giving the standing of the different provinces and of their debts. On page 478 it first gives the provincial debts of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, British Columbia, and Prince Edward Island, but leaves out Ontario.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That has no debt.


David Henderson: Evidently these gentlemen have been reading this book, and

consequently they are utterly ignorant of tlie state of the finances in the province of Ontario. Now, we have, a.t page 481, a statement of the surpluses from 1882 to 1899 also giving a statement of the railway liability payable in the future extending over forty years. It gives the Railway liability in each particular year of the province of Ontario. I shall take the year 1899, where it is stated that our railway liability is $1,962,903. Now, I take the budget speech of the hon. Prime Minister of Ontario (Mr. Ross) given a few months ago in which he states that the railway liability in January, was $3,510,790.


Mr. TALBOT.: What year ?


David Henderson: Up to the end of 1901. There is just the difference between the two years. The figures have increased somewhat. I am not quite sure that there was an increase in 1900 or 1901, but I beg to say that there is very little difference indeed.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Do I understand that that is the budget speech for this year ?


David Henderson: Yes.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Well, then that would be up to the end of 1901, and the statistical tables published in 1S99 would be for the year 1898, so that you would have three years.


David Henderson: No, the table I read from this year is for the year 1899. Now, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fraser) need not try to mix it. There would be a difference of possibly two years, but that would be the fullest extent of the difference. But, of course, there could not be a difference by any means of $2,000,000. I do not think it exceeded $500,000, if it exceeded $200,000. While we have Mr. Ross stating that the railway debt at the end of 1901 was $3,510,790, the Year-book places it at the end of 1S99 at $1,962,000. The commission sat since then, as an hon. gentleman suggests, but I do not know that it would make any material difference in the figures. 1 think they discovered that the debt was just about as large as it had been understood to be. It does not affect the matter that I object to. I will take another column because the object appears to me to be to show that Ontario has no debt at all. It is really the intention to convey that impression to the mind of the young reader in the public school when we all know that Ontario has a debt of nearly $6,000,000. There is $1,815,000 due the Dominion government, and we are paying interest from the province of Ontario to the Dominion on that sum of 4 and 5 per cent, a pretty high rate of interest to exact.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There Is something on the other side of the account.


David Henderson: Yes, but it is the wrong way. 1 will discuss the question that the hon. Minister of Finance referred to, in a moment ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not want to debate it with my hon. friend.


David Henderson: Leaving the matter, then, of the debt, which, I understand is nearly $6,000,000, I think it is very wrong in publishing a table of this kind to convey the impression that it is under $2,000,000. Another heading is : ' Surplus of assets .over liabilities,' and it is put down that in 1899 we have $2,250,932 of assets over all liabilities. Now, every man who is familiar with the financial history of the province of Ontario knows perfectly well that there is not a dollar of surplus and that for many years there has not been. That is a well known fact. A commission was appointed to try and find out this surplus a year or two ago, and when the commission reported, they said nothing about the surplus. However, that did not satisfy the Prime Minister of Ontario. He wanted a surplus and he asked an accountant in the city of Toronto by letter, to see if he could not find one. No doubt, the accountant was well paid for it and he furnished a report in which he actually did find a surplus. I have the report under my hand. I have the report of the royal commission, and it is put in a very peculiar way. The appendix to the report is put under the same cover as the report of the royal commission and went forth to the country actually as a government print and as a part of the report of the royal commission, when it was a well known fact that not a word of it was certified to by the commissioners. The commissioners made their report on the 13th of February, 1900, and the other work was undertaken on the 27th of March, when the Prime Minister wrote a letter to the accountant asking him to investigate this matter. No doubt he found a surplus but he did it by including an asset which was manufactured out of a subsidy that this government granted in 1884 to the province of Ontario, of $142,414, and by capitalizing it at 5 per cent, he made an item of $2,848,000, which he placed among the assets. That sum, however, being in excess of the sur-' plus that the government claimed by some $300,000, shows that instead of having a surplus of assets, they actually had no surplus at all, save that obtained by capitalizing a subsidy that nobody acknowledges as money, and which the hon. Minister of Finance himself, says the province of Ontario has not an unconditional right to, or, to use his own words :
I do not think your government have any unconditional right to demand this money from the Dominion.
They capitalized the sum representing the subsidy paid year after year by this government to the province of Ontario, and to

which capitalized sum the hen. Minister of Finance here says the Ontario government have no unconditional right to.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend might read that letter a little farther in all fairness.


David Henderson: I will read the whole letter if the hon. gentleman desires it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I do not desire it; it has been printed fifty times.
Mr. HENDERSON, (reading.)
I do not think your government have any unconditional right to demand this money from the Dominion. There are certain limitations provided by the statutes; hut no doubt if you desired to obtain the money you could easily comply with these conditions!
We all know that. Ontario can comply with the conditions, surrender the subsidy and take the larger sum, but Ontario does not want to do that. The province of Ontario might in the same way sell out any other asset that it had. I fail to see that there is anything gained by my reading the hon. gentleman's letter. This, I assume, is only the hon. minister's opinion, which he gave in order to help the Prime Minister at Toronto on the eve of an election at a very critical time. I am not going to say that the hon. Minister of Finance overstated what he believed to be correct, but I confess there are other men in the country who have given this matter careful consideration and they are directly of an opposite opinion to that of the lion. Minister of Finance in respect to that sum of money. It is simply capitalizing a sum of money that was granted by this government to the province of Ontario, and which this government is compelled to pay year after year to the province of Ontario.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: So long as Ontario wants it.


David Henderson: So long as Ontario wants it, and until this parliament authorizes this government to pay It over and until the provincial legislature of Ontario authorizes that government to receive it and in doing that they wipe out the subsidy. In that same way they might wipe out any other asset they have. There is not a dollar available to-day for the purpose of meeting the liabilities of the province. I therefore say, that this table is misleading and that it should be eliminated from the Year-book. It is too bad that our young minds should be led away with the idea that we have a large surplus in Ontario when we know that we are paying interest on a debt of $6,000,000, and that we have not a dollar of surplus over and above our actual liabilities. I will not analyse the contents of the Yearbook further, but I confess that if I ever happen to quote statistics from this book,
I am always careful to verify them by other departmental records.


David Henderson: 


Thomas Barnard Flint: It is unfair that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Henderson) should take up the time of this parliament in discussing the finances of the province of Ontario, with the intention of affecting the result in a local election which is about to take place.


Samuel Hughes: I rise to a point of order. The hon. member (Mr. Flint) has impuned the motives of another hon. member in this House.
The MINISTER Or FINANCE. He did not attribute an improper motive. It is not a crime to try to influence an election.


Thomas Barnard Flint: In order to save time, I will withdraw the expression, whether it is parliamentary or not. This whole question of the Ontario surplus was discussed last election and the argument of the supporters of the local government was well sustained by the facts. A careful examination of Ontario finances from an economical standpoint will show that the statement in the Yearbook is substantially correct. If my hon. friend wishes to show that the Year-book is incorrect I do not wish to deprive him of the pleasure, but he should not take up the time of this House in providing provincial campaign literature. He was entirely out of order in dealing with the Ontario finances. The Year-book in the main is correct, but all people are liable to make mistakes, and mistakes do sometimes occur in the Yearbook without any particular fault except perhaps a lack of care in due preparation of the figures. I have often had occasion to find fault with the manner of the compilation of the Year-book. I think the book might be made more interesting and useful, but I have no particular objection as to the correctness of the figures. The suggestion of the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Brock) as to the enormous expense of publishing and circulating the blue-books is worthy of our attention. I am glad to know, as stated by the hon. member for Proven-cher (Mr. LaRiviere) that a sub-committee of the Printing Committee is considering that whole subject with the view of adopting a plan by which a great deal of money could be saved to the country. I would suggest to that sub-committee that a careful list be made of those who receive these publications. The list has been altogether too large in the past. Ex-members of parliament who may have been here only a short time and who care nothing about these things have these publications sent to them for years and years after they have ceased to be members of this House.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. Only in case they apply for them.


Thomas Barnard Flint: The list should be carefully revised and made as small as it can be. I would suggest that a circular should be issued containing the names of all the publications and asking that those entitled to

receive them should mark off those which they desire to receive, so that those which do not interest them would not be sent. In that way thousands of dollars would be saved. I am pleased to get as many publications as the average member of parliament, but a great part of those which I do receive are useless to me and to others. They have the disadvantage that they cannot he burned in the furnace because they block it up, and it is often difficult to know what to do with them. There are, of course, the bound volumes which can be put into private libraries or donated to public libraries and they are useful. I think. Sir, that the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture covered the whole ground in regard to the Year-book. If errors have crept in through carelessness or inadvertence they will be corrected. Personally, I would like to see the Year-book published under a different system in the future, but the minister and his colleagues will no doubt come to a decision upon that. Be that as it may, I do not think that the committee should have its time taken up discussing the finances of Ontario.


James Clancy: I dissent from the sentiments expressed by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Flint). There is no thoughtful member of this House who will say that he can dispense with any of the departmental reports. They are the public records of the country. The hon. gentleman will see that he gets two unbound copies, one of which is supposed to be used during the session of parliament and the other he can very easily dispose of because there are many intelligent persons in the country who are always very glad to get them. The hon. gentleman says he has difficulty in burning them, but I ask him now if on reflection he will say that he can dispense with a single public document that is printed by order of this parliament.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I hope my hon. friend does not imagine that I intimated that they should be dispensed with. I merely suggested that the list of those who receive them should be carefully revised, and that those to whom books are sent should be asked to state what they want and what they do not want.


James Clancy: The hon. member knows that that is an impossibility. The Printing Committee provide for the publication of a certain number of these documents. If there are some members who do not care for the sessional papers, the committee are not able to determine in advance whether they will take them or not. If the hon. gentleman had the control of this matter he would find himself at the close of the year in a complete difficulty in regard to the distribution, though I have no doubt that some saving might be made in the printing. Coming back to this much-abused Year-book, it does not pretend to be more than a sort of compilation of the public
records, and if they have been in any sense false, it would not do for the compiler of the Year-book to undertake to correct them. For this reason the statistician is not to blame for having stated that there was no debt in the province of Ontario, because he simply took the public records as he found them. You would not expect a public official to undertake to correct from his own bat any public documents. I do not think it is a fair charge to bring against the Minister of Agriculture to say that this Year-book is inaccurate, beyond this, that he has sat in his place and has permitted attacks to be made upon it in this House for party purposes. On the whole, it is a reliable and very satisfactory work, and it is not fair to have it go out that there are immense inaccuracies in it. Its compiler would be more than human if no errors occurred in it, but there are none to seriously impair the value of the work.
iMr. HUGHES (Victoria). I was very much surprised to hear the hon. member for Yarmouth speak of curtailing the distribution of one or two of these publications to members of parliament or ex-members of parliament. Who are better fitted or take greater interest in watching the proceedings of parliament than ex-members of parliament ? I said a moment ago that a good deal of money was wasted in the distribution of these agricultural reports. I am satisfied that it cannot be carried on as it was a year or two ago, when the evidence, which could all be compressed into four or five pages of common sense, was sent out in books of 200 or 300 pages and distributed in tons throughout the country. A farmer would never sit down to read these books. This system, I presume, has been discontinued.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, they are printed by the order of the House. The Department of Agriculture has nothing whatever do with that.


Samuel Hughes: It would pay this country to have some intelligent sessional clerk, if such can be found, condense the whole thing into a nice little concise volume of twenty pages, and distribute' that. I think there is a great deal of money wasted, not only in connection with this item, but in connection with the printing of parliament. Very many reports are ordered to be distributed when only two or three copies are wanted ; and some of these sessional clerks who are standing around and getting in everybody's way instead of attending to their own business, might be engaged to strike off two or three copies on the typewriter for those who want them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: With reference to the number of reports of the Committee on Agriculture, the hon. gentleman has exaggerated. I have been on that committee for a number of years, and I understand

how these reports are given out to be distributed. No report of 300 or 400 pages is distributed in large numbers ; but the House recommended the printing of a certain number of copies of the summary reports to be given to members of parliament for distribution, and my experience is that members representing rural constituencies have applied to members representing city constituencies to give them a portion of their number for distribution in their constituencies. We have had many controversies in the committee on this subject, the difficulty having been to get the House to order enough to satisfy the needs of the committee. With- regard to the Year-book, X think it is regrettable to see one minister of the Crown getting up and discrediting a publication got out by another department. If we cannot rely on the official reports, what can we rely on ? If they are not reliable, the minister at the head of the department ought to be held responsible.


Samuel Hughes: As one member who I am sure would like to say something on the subject of the Year-book is absent through illness this evening, I would suggest that the minister allow this item to stand and take up some other items.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: This item has been already once before the House. If my hon. friend did not wish to discuss it, he should have said so when it was first called. But after we have discussed it so long, I do not think we ought to postpone it.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume the hon. minister will have no objection to discuss the subject on another item.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not at all.
General statistics, $3,200.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is the item out of which the compilation of the Year-book is paid. There are some extra clerks paid out of this vote, and the balance is available for any statistical work.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the minister if he is going to employ this ubiquitous gentleman who sells books, writes for the magazines and obtains land values. I refer to Mr. Washington. I am not disposed to quarrel with useful expenditure, but we have a return made by Mr. Washington which is absolutely worthless: Mr. Washington is a gentleman who has been taken care of by the Minister of Agriculture.


George Taylor: For what reason V


James Clancy: He said he was not a Liberal but voted with the Liberal party. He solemnly swore he was not a Liberal but a free trader. This is an absolute waste of money.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Washington was doing, in the course of the last two or three years, certain investigations and statistical work for which he was paid out of this vote: The report is on the Table of the House. He made some investigations into the selling value of rural lands, and the trend of rise and fall in the value of such lands. The work has extended over the past three years and when at work he is paid out of this fund. He has not worked in this fiscal year at all, and consequently has not been paid out of this fund.


Samuel Hughes: Who are paid out of this fund ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: None except the clerks engaged under Mr. Johnston in compilation.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We ought to put the whole sum fairly chargeable to the Statistical Year-book in one item so that we might know from year to year what it costs.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The vote for the Statistical Year-book is simply fpr printing it. The book is printed in the Bureau and the $4,000 is all paid to the Bureau for printing it.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman says that Mr. Washington received no pay for the current year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think so.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then he was paid last year.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Andrew B. Ingram: His report must have been made to the department last year. How does it come that no report but Mr. Washington's appears in the Year-book ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The portion of this vote is to pay ordinary clerks in the department, a part of the staff engaged on the Year-book and any other statistical work that may be given out, and a portion is employed to pay anybody else who may be doing statistical work.


Andrew B. Ingram: Then, we understand that Mr. Washington gets paid for making land values ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Well, that may be one way of putting it. but I would not put it that way. What I said was that he was paid for investigating land values.


Andrew B. Ingram: 
The MINISTER OP AGRICULTURE.: Many are employed in my department who are called temporary clerks. They were there before I took charge, and are practically permanent officers. Seme have been in the department for 15 years, some perhaps, for even 20 years.


Andrew B. Ingram: Why not make them permanent ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have not disturbed the order of affairs that I found in existence. It would require a considerable change in the organization of the department, and I have not seen fit to undertake that any more than did my predecessors. I have not the names of the clerks at the moment, but I can get them for the hon. gentleman. For his satisfaction, I may tell him that there is not a single one paid out of this vote that was not there when I took charge of the department.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think that only Mr. Johnson and two clerks were working there when the hon. gentleman took office.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ingram) is mistaken. I can get the list of clerks.


Andrew B. Ingram: Some other time will do.


James Clancy: I do not think the committee is disposed to accept as final the hon. minister's statement that he will consider whether he will retain Mr. Washington as a fixture upon the service of this country. It is not pleasant to be forced to state in the House the opinion one holds of one in Mr. Washington's position. But when a man is paid hundreds of dollars-running into thousands by this time-and yet does not hesitate to state his conclusion and put it in writing that during the exact year when the Liberals were in power, the hard times had the effect of enhancing the land values, and that they had the very opposite effect when the Conservatives were in power, what are we to think of the value of the employment by government of such a man ? I have no hesitation in saying that no one but a lunatic would base such a statement upon the evidence produced by Mr. Washington. I, for one, am not disposed to let this item pass until we have some declaration from the minister that he has at least made up his mind to discontinue a work that is utterly useless and, indeed, disgraceful. If the hon. minister is ready to stand sponsor and godfather for
work of that kind, and cannot make up his mind whether to discontinue it or not, I, for one, propose that the item shall not pass until he can tell the House what he intends to do. I do not wish to stand in the way of the item passing, but I think the committee is entitled to some declaration on the subject. This side of the House can make up their minds, if the hon. minister cannot.


Thomas Barnard Flint: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) is unduly violent over a matter which does not necessarily call for such strong language. As to the report made by Mr. Washington, until we have had copies of It printed and in our hands to study, it is impossible for us to come to a conclusion concerning it. That such an inquiry is absurd and valueless, I think has not been proved, and cannot be proved. That there is such a thing as rise and fall of land values in various portions of the country, and that this may be caused by different occurrences, will hardly be denied. But the opinion of the minister, in which I concur, is that to carry on that inquiry throughout the Dominion upon the scale upon which Mr. Washington started out, would take a long time and a great deal of money. I, for one, as a member of the committee do not see that we could reasonably ask the House to vote the sum necessary for such a work. But I do not think it fair to discuss Mr. Washington's report until it is in our hands, and. it seems to me that the language used by the hon. gentleman is not justified under the circumstances.


Samuel Hughes: Where do we find recorded the salaries paid to this man Washington ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Washington has no salary, and he has not been paid anything by the department in the current year. This item is for general statistics for next year and, so far, I have formed no plan for paying Mr. Washington out of this item. When he was paid, he was paid out of this item in last year's vote and the vote of the year before.


Samuel Hughes: Was he paid out of any other department or any other fund ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not that I am aware of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me clear that if Mr. Washington was paid out of this vote, an improper use was made of the money. Judging by his report, Mr. Washington is only a political jobber, a land valuator getting up the case for the Reform party. The sum and substance of his work is an effort to show that the land went down in value when the Conservative party were in power and went up when the Reform party came into power. And I think

the hon. member for Bothwell ( Mr. Clancy) was quite right in saying that the data Mr. Washington gave could not be used as a basis for his conclusions by any one other than a lunatic. He had nothing reliable to go upon, and yet, for the purpose of his party he was willing to make this report. And we pay him under the head of general statistics. I say he is improperly paid if paid out of this item, and he is improperly employed If employed at all.


James Clancy: I wish to say a word to my hon. friend from Yarmouth (Mr. Flint). That hon. gentleman seems to have an abhorrence of public records and to have forsworn the use of them. This report of which we are speaking has been on the Table for a month, and if the hon. gentleman was inclined to be informed he has had the opportunity. Yet, though he has not read this report, he does not hesitate to rise and defend it. Now if the hon. gentleman appeals to the Minister of Agriculture he will put him in possession of that within two minutes.


Thomas Barnard Flint: I think the hon. gentleman has the manuscript of that report in his pocket.


James Clancy: Not at all, the manuscript is in the possession of Mr. Polkinghorne, I have not had it in my pocket at all. The hon. gentleman should have been informed before he made the statement. I repeat that Mr. Washington is a pensioner on the department, 'the Minister of Agriculture says he has not been paid anything during the current year. The hon. gentleman knows that besides being paid for this job, he has been engaged in the census department for a considerable time, he is in fact a man that must be taken care of. When he is not there he is going through the department selling books. The hon. gentleman's own department has bought books from him, every department has bought books from him; he is a perfect nuisance, if I am forced to use such language. That he should be paid out of the public funds of Canada to make up a record of what he calls land values for the use of the intelligent people of this country, is a perfect outrage. It is curious to see liow he arrives at the difference in land values. He tells us that he does not take into consideration any improvements made on the land. The truth is that Mr. Washington has disclosed that his report is utterly worthless, Yet hon. gentlemen will no doubt later on use^ that report and say that during the period the Tories were in power land values went down, and during the period the Liberals were in power they went up. I say a man who will commit himself to a statement of that kind unrebuked is past redemption.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Why didn't you rebuke him the other day when you liad him under cross-examination ?


James Clancy: Perhaps I had a good deal better manners than my hon. friend, because, having the opportunity, I would not use it. I was not disposed to take advantage of my position to say unkind things to this man, because I hoped at least that the Minister of Agriculture and hon. gentlemen opposite would put an end to the l'arce.


Archibald Campbell: I would say it to his face rather than behind his back.


James Clancy: My hon. friend and his friends have brought this upon Mr. Washington. The Minister of Agriculture evidently thinks that Mr. Washington is a very valuable man, and that he cannot possibly part with him. Why cannot the hon. gentleman admit that the whole thing is a farce V Surely hds own friends do not sympathize with the' attitude he has taken this evening ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The hon. gentleman evidently is not very well satisfied with the outcome of the investigation that has been carried on by Mr. Washington. Mr. Washington undertook to investigate facts, not a theory, not a policy, or anything of the kind, but facts in regard to the sales of land in certain counties, which were picked out for the purpose of investigation, through a certain number of years. The facts show that during certain periods land seemed to go down in value, because it sold for less than it brought earlier during those periocl)s. In other periods the land seemed to be rising in value because it sold for a higher price at each successive sale.


Andrew B. Ingram: Where did he get that information ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From the registry books of the counties which he examined.


Andrew B. Ingram: How did you get that information ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: From his report, and from the details on which he based his report. He based his conclusions on figures in, a multitude of cases, where he found that on one occasion a certain property was sold for a certain sum and on a subsequent occasion it was sold for a higher, or a lower price. Mr. Washington's investigation shows that during certain years there was a steady decrease in prices, and In certain other years there was an Increase in prices obtained for the same properties. It happened unfortunately for the hon. gentlemen opposite that there was a very marked difference since the present government came into power, and that a little while afterwards lands in the rural districts began to increase in value. During the period before the present government came into power lands steadily decreased in value. That is what nettles the hon. gentleman. If Mr. Washington's investigation had told in the other


Thomas Simpson Sproule: direction, I have no doubt the hon. gentleman would have thought Mr. Washington a heaven-born genius, but as it is, he finds Mr. Washington is something very bad indeed.


William Rees Brock: It is evident from what we hear this evening that this gentleman has taken a great deal of unnecessary trouble to go through the registry books and find out at what prices lands in particular localities have been sold. The value of land, as every one knows, is to be found in the value of its products, the value of the wheat for instance. To find the value of wheat you have only to consult the Liverpool market from time to time. The value of land, like everything else, is measured by what it produces. The employment of this gentleman to go through the country and examine registry books in various counties is a most ridiculous waste of money, and must have been done, not for statistial purposes, but for the purpose of bolstering up the pretensions of hon. gentlemen opposite to be the saviours of the country. As to the value of wheat, or the price of any other product of the land, no one pretends that this government or any other government has anything to do with it. The value of timber land is measured by the value of the lumber that it produces. You can always get those statistics without the employment of a man like Mr. Washington to go through the country and examine the registry books. When gentlemen like Mr. Washington start out on a job of that kind they always know what you want theni to do, and they are prepared to keep at it as long as the salary is forthcoming. I really think the Minister of Agriculture should be ashamed of this whole business.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman was asked on the 25th of February, this question :


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. minister says that the inspiration to appoint such an officer came from himself. As it was he who inspired the idea, he must have known who this gentleman was and where he came from. Did he come from the hon. gentleman's own riding.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, he did not. I never knew the gentleman until I met him here at Ottawa and do not know where he came from.
Then the minister says further :


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Washington is a gentleman who has been engaged for years in statistical investigation. When I first met him we had a discussion on statistical work. I believe he was at one time in the press gallery, but I did not Inquire particularly into his antecedents.
How docs the hon. gentleman know that if he never knew the gentleman until he met him here at Ottawa ? Then my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) asks :
Was he on the Montreal ' Herald '?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not think he ever was connected with the Montreal ' Herald,' and I cannot remember who introduced
him to me, hut I have known him a good marry years and have frequently discussed statistical work with him.
These three answers do not corroborate each other very well. Now, look at the wonderful work this gentleman did. When the hon. minister was asked where he employed this man his answer was :
I think he went to three counties in Ontario, to one in Quebec, and to one or two in the maritime provinces.
I doubt whether he did come into Ontario with that small expense account of $54.07. The minister proceeds :
I know he was in Prince Edward Island, and I think he examined a county in Nova Scotia.


James Clancy: Does he state that ?


Andrew B. Ingram: That is what the hon. minister states, and yet we have been told that the valuable work of this man shows a wonderful decrease in land values under the Conservative regime and a wonderful increase during the time that hon. gentlemen have been in power. Then we were told by the hon. minister to-night that this man is paid out of the $3,200. He was paid $722.31 for his salary and $54.67 for his travelling expenses. I see that he has been engaged in the statistical department, for which we are paying $4,000 in one instance and $3,200 in another instance. We have the right to have that gentleman's report included in the Statistical Year-book.


James Clancy: No, no ; for heaven's sake no.
. Mr. INGRAM. If it has any value at all it should be placed in there, and the hon. gentleman should assume responsibility for it and not come down to this House and lay it on the Table. Not many hon. gentlemen in this House have any opportunity of reading it. If he does statistical work his work should be put into the report, so that we could see it. and if his employment is not justifiable, then, the sooner this man is discharged the better.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has evidently been getting up a campaign document.


Andrew B. Ingram: I think so. The other evening the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) introduced a book, and probably if its pages were carefully perused we would find the report of Mr. Washington in it. As to the value of land this gentleman seems to make out an increased value since hon. gentlemen opposite came into .power. In my district land has gone up very materially, but it is only in one or two spots where government buildings are erected and where friends of the government get an increased profit. I have no doubt that my hon. friend from London (Mr. Hyman) finds that values have gone up a little. In the county of Elgin land values in the matter of government purchases, have gone up from something like $80 to $300, so that

since the government came into power there has been an increase of abont 200 per cent.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax), l would like to say that if this gentleman, Mr. Washington, about whom I know nothing, pursued the method of investigation that has been mentioned by the lion. Minister of Agriculture, the results must- certainly be very valuable. He has gone, the minister says, through the registry offices and investigated the land values there. I believe there has been an investigation of that kind in the province of Nova Scotia.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: In Prince Edward Island and in Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought it was stated that he had investigated Nova Scotia as well.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: Why has my province been deprived of the services of this gentleman ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: We have not had him long enough to go there.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I will require a full explanation of why my province has been deprived of the services of this gentleman before this item is passed. It is one of the most scandalous attempts to impose on Nova Scotia that I ever heard of. However, for my present purpose, it does not make very much difference about Nova Scotia. I do not suppose deeds are prepared differently in Prince Edward Island from the way in which they are prepared in Nova Scotia. I do not know whether they are prepared differently in Ontario or not. I know that in Nova Scotia in not 50 per cent of the cases is the consideration price correctly stated in the deed of conveyance.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is in Quebec.
Mr. BORi->GN (Halifax). Well, the hon. gentleman should have ascertained something about the other provinces before he made any statement as to this gentleman's method of investigation. In thousands of cases, to my own knowledge, in the province of Nova Scotia, in which large transactions have taken place, the sum of one dollar has been mentioned as the consideration.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: Would that be in the case of farm lands ? That would be simply in the sale of land to some corporation or the passing of property between relatives.


Robert Laird Borden: And also in the sale of farm lands in the province of Nova Scotia. Personally, when I purchased a property which I own there, the consideration which was stated was one dollar.


Andrew B. Ingram: 


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Probably that was the real value ?


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend (Mr. McCarthy) is welcome to that idea if he desires to entertain it.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: It shows the increase in the value of land.


Robert Laird Borden: Since the government came into power.


Mr. HYMAN.: That does not prove it has not increased in value.


Robert Laird Borden: In many eases the consideration w'hich is stated in Novft Scotia is one dollar. Now does this gentleman obtain any valuable information by looking at deeds of that character ? Yet, according to the hon. Minister of Agriculture the only way in which he has pursued liis inquiries is by resorting to the registry offices. Would the hon. gentleman state whether in different counties he has made these investigations exhaustive as to farm lands?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, in every instance where there were two sales of the same property.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not an answer to the question. Dees he take all the farm land in any particular county and go through it ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes. He takes every case where there are two sales of the same property within the period which he is investigating, so as to see whether there has been a rise or a fall in the value of that property.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend mean that he takes a period of say twenty or twenty-five years and investigates every sale of farm property in a particular county during that period ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A great many of the sales that take place in the province of Ontario at the present time are the sales of land held under mortgage. A portion of the mortgage is paid off and the purchaser agrees to pay a certain consideration and assume the mortgage.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: That is recited in the deed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How does any person know how much of the mortgage is unpaid ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: It is registered.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Not at all.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mortgages are all registered.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Yes, the mortgage is registered but until the discharge of the

whole mortgage there is nothing in the registry office to show how much remains to be paid. There is usually a portion of the mortgage paid before the property is sold and when the property is sold, because the companies are pushing for payment, the party who purchases the property agrees to assume the mortgage. You go to the registry office and you can find no trace there of the actual value of that land, or what it has changed hands for except for that.


Mr. ERB.: As there seems to be some doubt in the minds of gentlemen opposite as to the increase in farm values in recent years, I wish to say that I know of two farms in my own neighbourhood that were sold eight or ten years ago, and again sold within the last six months. About ten years ago one of these farms was sold for $10,000, and the purchaser built on it a new barn, costing about $15,000. That farm was sold within the last six months for $13,500. Another farm was sold eight or ten years ago for $6,500, and it was resold about four months ago for $7,500, or $1,000 more, with out any improvements having been made. These are two cases in my own experience.


Onésiphore Ernest Talbot: (Translation.) I was surprised when I heal'd some hon. gentlemen say that for the hon. minister to have employed a man who was throughly competent and having technical knowledge, to make up a record of land values throughout the several provinces of the Dominion, was an outrage and a farce. Now, in the province of Quebec, from which I come, and in my own riding, for instance, farmers do not raise wheat, and they depend altogether for their revenue on dairying ; and such being the case, I should like the hon. member for Toronto Centre (Mr. Brock) to tell me how he would manage to measure the value of farm lands in my riding, if it be true, as he stated, that to find out the value of lands in this country, you have to consult the London market ailone.


Samuel Hughes: I am sorry to see hon. gentlemen opposite obstructing these estimates and in both languages. Is it the intention of the minister to employ Washington during the next fiscal pear ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I have made no plans for it.


Samuel Hughes: If such were the intention. I would move that this item be reduced by the amount of his salary. Who paid his travelling expenses of $52, travelling all the way from Prince Edward Island to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All the expenses he charged were paid by the department.


Samuel Hughes: How much were they ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: 1 cannot tell you off-hand.


James Clancy: The question before us is that the service rendered by this man was utterly useless to the country. In order to show the character of the man I may mention that he stated without a blush on his solemn oath that he worked on Sundays, and of course he was paid for it. How much has Mr. Washington been paid since he commenced, and how long has he been working in the department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I find from the Auditor General's Report that last year he was paid $285. As far as I can see he has been paid altogether about $1,000. He commenced I think in 1897 or 1898.


James Clancy: Better let the item stand until we get definite information.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If this man were employed to get valuable statistics I could understand the expenditure, but when he came to the province of Ontario he had in the report of the Bureau of Industries, the value of land from year to year as published by the friends of this government. If he desired the only reliable information at his hand he could have obtained it* there, but he paid no attention to it and his statistics are worthless. What is the matter with the hon. member for North Simcoe ? He appears to be amused, as*he always is, about something that is of no importance to any one but himself.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: Don't worry about me. Mr. SPROULE. The hon. gentleman should know that he is in the House of Commons. We have a right to discharge our duties without these senseless interruptions. The sooner his constituents know the way he conducts himself the better. I say that these statistics are about on a par with the supposed statistics alleged to have been collected by Mr. Cote and his friends in regard to the census of 1891. They are got for political purposes and for nothing else and public money spent in that way is misapplied.


William Ross: The hon. member (Mr. Clancy) has said that this gentleman worked on Sunday. The question was put to Mr. Washington if he was authorized to work on Sunday, and his answer was ' No.' May I ask the minister if that gentleman is emiiloyed in the department now.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Leighton Goldie McCarthy: I may tell the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Sproule) that the reason of my amusement was that he stated that the information published by the Bureau of Statistics in Ontario was authentic. That statement coming from him

amused us. He tried to withdraw from that position and he said it was authentic at least so far as government information could be correct. Does he now say that the information published by the Bureau of Industries in Ontario is in his opinion correct.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I want the hon. gentleman to understand that he is not in court nor am I here to be cross-ques/tioned. He may assume a good deal as a certain class of lawyers do, but fortunately I am not under his control now.


Samuel Hughes: This man Washington has been here since 1897. What other reports has he made ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He has only made one report.


Samuel Hughes: I object to the minister sitting on his seat when answering a question.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Would the hon. gentleman like to see me sit anywhere else ?


Samuel Hughes: I would now ask the minister how it is that this officer has oiily handed in one report in so many years ? What has he been doing in the past years ? Has he been engaging in elections ?
The * MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. The hon. gentleman is asking a question and then answering it himself. Mr. Washington did not hand in his report until his work was finished.- When it was brought to a conclusion he handed in his report.


Mr. CLA  NCY@: The hon. gentleman has not given us the information which I asked for a moment ago, namely, when Mr. Washington began his duties, and how much he was paid each year up to the time he concluded that report.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Mr. Washington commenced his work, I think, in the year 1897, and he has been working off and on occasionally since that time. I cannot give the hon. gentleman the information as to how much he has been paid each year. I could send to the library and get the Auditor General's Report for each year, in which, as the hon. gentleman knows, that information lias been published, and he can get it very easily.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that he is not employed by him. Is he employed in any other department ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Not that I am aware of.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was he not employed in the Census Department lately ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He was. He resigned from the census about two months ago.


Andrew B. Ingram: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if these people are still em-Mr. McCarthy
ployed in the department : Mr. Watts, Mr. Monroe, Miss Ross and Mr. Lepage.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Yes, they are still employed. They have been employed there ever since I have been in the office.


Andrew B. Ingram: Are there any others besides these ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I do not know of any others.


Andrew B. Ingram: The hon. gentleman said last year that there were two others.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the hon. gentleman will turn to the Auditor General's report, he will find on page D-4 the salaries, and on page D-13 General Statistics and other expenditures, in which he will find the payments to Mr. Washington.


Andrew B. Ingram: Mr. Washington could not have been paid out of this $3,200 last year, because the minister otherwise accounted for the whole amount.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman give the committee the date when Mr. Washington commenced his services, and where he was making his investigations in 1899, in 1900, and in a portion of 1901, which Is not included in this report ? The reason I ask for this is that the hon. gentleman stated that Mr. Washington's report as laid on the Table did not contain all the information.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I should be glad to give the hon. gentleman every figure and table. I did not lay these on the Table, but they are in the department, and if the hon. gentleman wants them, I will bring them, though I do not think that either he or I would be willing to go through them.


James Clancy: I am afraid the hon. gentleman is making it necessary for us to insist on the information, no matter how unpleasant it may be for the committee. If the minister has now found himself in the unpleasant position of being required to furnish the information on which we may judge of this gigantic work which he says is going on, I think it is well that we should have some information to guide us more definitely on that point. The hon. gentleman will recognize, I am sure, that it is a very reasonable request that he should put the committee in possession of that information, and I do not think he should expect the item to pass until he does.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think the hon. gentleman is entirely unreasonable in asking that all the figures from which certain conclusions are drawn should be laid before the House. He might as well ask for every customs paper on which the trade and navigation returns are

based to be laid before the House. The hon. gentleman knows that every report is based on millions of figures and statements obtained from officers all over the country.


James Clancy: The two cases are not at all similar. In the one case the figures are those of a gentleman who had wormed himself into the affections of the Minister of Agriculture ; in the other case the figures are obtained from regular official documents. I ask the hon. gentleman if he intends to continue Mr. Washington in office ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I said I have not made up my mind.


James Clancy: It is about time the hon. gentleman did.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will do that when ready.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman will find it convenient some time to make up his mind. He had better let the item stand until he gets the information. Does he refuse to give us the information in detail which Mr. Washington has given him ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the House desires to have every figure that Mr. Washington has on his sheets, &c., I will bring them down, but I do not think that it is advisable to do so. The report Mr. Washington made is based on a mass of detail which he discovered in his investigations. That report is in the hands of the House. I think it utterly unreasonable to ask for all the figures and all the details which are worked into the report.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The same thing was done by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when the analysis of the census, without request, were laid on the Table. How much was Washington paid ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: He was paid $5 a day all the time he was engaged in the former year. He was also paid $5 a day, and part of the time $3 a day.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He has been paid a good round sum for his labour and for information that is practically worthless. To enable us to determine whether it is of any value at all, it would be well to furnish the House with all the data.


Robert Laird Borden: Reports of commissions may be based on voluminous evidence and the evidence is always reported to the committee. The report is the conclusion drawn from a very large mass of evidence, which the House is no better able to go over than the details referred to here. Not many would want to go over them, but if only one does so wish, there is no reason why they should not be furnished.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the originals are to be brought down, that would not cost much, but to make copies would cost considerable.


Robert Laird Borden: There is no reason why the originals should not be brought down and left in charge of the House.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: My hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) can go to the department and consult them there, and I think that would be the simpler way. I would be glad to give the hon. gentleman every facility.


James Clancy: My hon. friend is entirely too generous. It is his business to give the House the information. No more reasonable request was ever made than I am making now. I presume the hon. gentleman will have no objection to stating to the committee the object of continuing this man in the work of the department.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: The object is to find out whether there is any distinct rule of progress, the selling value of the land from one date to another. That has been, to a certain extent, shown by the report of Mr. Washington. But that report is what I might call a specimen to show what has been occurring in parts of the country. As the hon. gentleman knows, the investigation took place only in Prince Edward Island and in the counties of Carleton, Durham and Elgin in Ontario. The facts point to certain conclusions, but if the question is deemed sufficiently important to go on with the investigation, I should be obliged to ask for a vote for the purpose. When that comes up the hon. gentleman will be welcome to discuss the desirability of the investigation. Under this vote it is impossible that that work should be conducted to any sort of conclusion. And so I can say that, so far as this vote is concerned, I am not going to carry it out. But as to what is going to be done in the future I am not prepared to bind myself.


James Clancy: And yet the hon. minister has not told us the object of this investigation. He said it was to gain information as to the rise and fall of land values. But what is the object of that ? I shall not attribute motives to the hon. gentleman; and he may be able to give reasons. But, I confess that I am so dull that I cannot see it.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I think it is of great importance to the farming community whether lands are rising or falling in value, because it shows, to a great extent whether the agriculture industry is profitable or otherwise. The way to ascertain that would be by a statistical investigation, just as in the case of other economic facts.


James Clancy: Then, I take it that if the hon. gentleman found that land values were falling, he is so confident of the power of his government, that he would take means to prevent that decline.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If there seemed any way of doing it, we certainly would try. But the lands are rising in value.


James Clancy: Yes, and in spite of the hon. gentleman. It is surprising that the hon. gentleman can have seen so much aud cannot see what a consummate fraud it is. Let the hon. gentleman come to his senses-


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We will come to the census by and by.


James Clancy: The Minister of Finance is usually a very prudent gentleman. Aud it is a noticeable fact that he has not risked his reputation by saying a word in defence of this scheme. I am sure he does not approve of it-his views are too broad for that. The Minister of Agriculture states that there is nothing in this vote for the purpose of carrying on work of this kiud. If he is prepared to say that he will not ask the House during the present session for anything to continue the work, I am perfectly satisfied that the item should pass-But, if he cannot make that statement 1 think we should insist on our rights to have such information to guide us, for, in the absence of such a declaration we may ail conclude that the hon. gentleman intends later on to ask us for money to continue the work.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I am afraid I cannot pledge myself.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The fact that the item is here is evidence that the hon. minister intends to continue the work for he told us that this was one of the expenses covered by the vote.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman was asked what the money was for, and he stated-


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I gave what was spent on this service last year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But what was the use of that -if it does not indicate how this money is to be spent ? Mr. Washington was quoted as one of the gentlemen who were to share this money.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Or some one else to do this kind of work.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: Any work that might turn up.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: But money is not voted for one purpose and used for another.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I meant statistical work.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Then, in connection with that I was going to say that if the hon. minister thinks to convince the people that by sending a man around to estimate values- Mr. CLANCY.
it is only an estimate, for he gets no reliable information from the registry offices- that he will get facts upon which conclusion can be based, he is very much mistaken. Very few will believe that. As I said before, the only source from which these values can be got even 'approximately is the bureau of industries. I was going to add, when I was interrupted, by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) that, while the information given to the bureau covers estimates that are not exactly correct, the general results are approxi-I mately correct. But it is little less than absurd for the hon. gentleman to pretend that he can get anything of land values by compiling such figures as these in the three counties in Ontario.


James Clancy: At page D-13 of the Auditor General's Report, there is an item of $2,284.20 for salaries. -Would the hon. minister tell us how many persons were employed and what each received ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: That is under the head of general statistics. If the hon. gentleman will turn back to page D-4, he will find them all recorded- four clerks whose names had been read by the hon. member for East Elgin (Mr. Ingram).


Robert Laird Borden: Cannot the hon. gentleman make up his mind about putting these on the Table ? It cannot be a difficult thing, either to bring down the original or to bring down a copy.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: If the leader of the opposition asks that all this mass of details should be brought down, I will yield to his request; but I think he is asking for something which will be of no earthly use to the House or the country.


Robert Laird Borden: I will accept my hon. friend's promise to bring it down if required, and I will consult with my hon. friend from Bothwell, and let the hon. gentleman know if we require it. Of course it is understood we are to discuss that matter on some other item if we desire to do so.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: On concurrence.


Robert Laird Borden: No, I do not mean on concurrence, that is not the arrangement we made.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I cannot allow the hon. gentleman to discuss this item on every other item of my estimates that will come up.


Robert Laird Borden: I think when we passed the item of the Statistical Year-book I had a distinct understanding with the hon. gentleman that this matter might be discussed on some subsequent item ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think that is the case. I think the hon. gentleman could work it in with the other item.


Peter Macdonald: Carried.


Robert Laird Borden: No, let us not have any misunderstanding about our agreement. I distinctly understood from the Minister of Agriculture to-night that anything that might be discussed on the item of the Statistical Year-book, might in the same manner and to the same full extent, be discussed on some subsequent item. Am I wrong about that ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: No, you are not wrong.


Robert Laird Borden: Then I say further that if that is to be done, inasmuch as this item is distinctly connected with the previous item, after these documents are brought down, if we require them, I would like to have the same liberty to deal with this particular subject, after making such examination as we might desire of these documents.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: All right.


Robert Laird Borden: Are we sure we understand each other ?


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE. .: Yes, I understand the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: There is another thing that I would like to mention. I would like the Minister of Agriculture to be prepared with certain information as to what inquiries have been made of census enumerators respecting alleged frauds, before the census item is finally disposed of. I <Io not want to refer to what has taken place in the past. My hon. friend knows he said that he thought he would be able at some future day to furnish me with certain information as to that. I would like to know who the enumerators are who have been communicated with, what the nature of the communication to them was, and what reply was received from them in each instance. I think we should have this information before the census item passes, and that we should have it for a sufficient length of time previously to enable us to examine it in connection with the documents already laid on the Table, for the purpose of discussing the action of the government respecting the investigations made into the census of 1891.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I understand that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would also like to say to the Minister of Agriculture that, when it will be convenient to him, either on his estimates or at some other time, I shall bring to his attention certain facts in connection with the dismissal of Captain D. C. Stewart, Halifax, who was employed, I think, in connection with the quarantine service. I would like the hon. gentleman to be prepared to discuss that, either on his estimates or at some other time which we can arrange between us.


The MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE.: I will be very glad to. Perhaps it would be convenient for the hon. gentleman to discuss that on the quarantine item.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Minister of Finance, House adjourned at 2.05 a.m., Wednesday,

Wednesday, April 16, 1902.