FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 188) to confer on the Commissioner of Patents certain powers for the relief of Trussed Concrete Steel Company of Canada, Limited.-Mr. Clarke (Essex).
Bill (No. 193) respecting La Sauvegarde Life Insurance Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 195) to incorporate the Western Canal Company.-Mr. Tolmie.

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

*Mr. MONK:: 1.	Wliat was the total amount paid by the government of Canada during the year ended 31st March last to Mr. Treau de Coeli, immigration agent at Belgium?
2.	What was the total number of Belgian immigrants that arrived in Canada during the same period?
3.	What men were returned to the government by Mr. Treau de Coeli as employed by him for government work during the months of December and February last, how much was paid to said men so employed and what work did they do?
4.	What official residence in Belgium did Mr Treau de Coeli attribute to said men so employed in his report?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1. $5,125.87, made up as follows:
Salary of Mr. de Coeli.. .. $1,558 31
Salaries of staff	 716 76
Expenses	 2,850 80
Total	$5,125 87
2. 1,608.
3.	One only, Mr. George Mercier, of
Dumas, Saskatchewan, employed as a farmer delegate in Belgium for three months, January, February and March, 1911.	$394.69 was paid.
4.	See answer to 3.


NEWSPAPER STATEMENTS AFFECTING HON. MR. OLIVER.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Pursuant to the notice I gave the House yesterday, I beg to move:	'
The statement having been made in certain newspapers that on the recommendation of the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, an order in council was passed on 8th May, 1967, giving the Canadian Northern Railway Company power to select in the province of Saskatchewan 600,000 acres of land in place of lands granted to the Manitoba and Southeastern Railway Company, and that on 3rd October in the same year $50,000 was paid into the Imperial Bank at Edmonton to the credit of Mr. Oliver, and that about one year later the further sum of $19,000 was similarly paid into the same bank to the credit of Mr. Oliver.
And Mr Oliver having on the second day of May instant stated from his place in this House that no foundation whatever existed for the insinuation or suspicion that the said payments of money or either of them were made on account of the passing of the said order in council or by reason of the making of the said land grant, or in any way in connection therewith or on account thereof.
Resolved, that it be referred to a special committee of five members to investigate and inquire into the truth of the statement, and matters above set forth and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine persons on oath or affirmation, and to report from time to time.	*


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is now proposing a motion, which, in its effect, is practically the same as the one which he proposed yesterday, although it is not in the same form. The effective words of the motion are, in this case, preceded by a recital which has been read to the House by my right hon. friend. That recital is in these words:
The statement having been made in certain newspapers that 'on the recommendation of the Hon. Frank Oliver, Minister of the Interior, an order in council was passed on 8Hi May, 1907, giving the Canadian Northern Railway Company power to select in the province of Saskatchewan 600,000 acres of land in nlace of lands granted to the Manitoba and Southeastern Railway Company, and that on 3rd October in the same year $50,000 was paid into the Imperial Bank at Edmonton to the credit of Mr. Oliver, and that about one year after the further sum of $19,000 was similarly paid into the same bank to the like credit of Mr. Oliver.
And Mr. Oliver having on the second day of May instant stated from his place in this House that no foundation whatever existed for the insinuation or suspicion that the said payments of money or either of them were made on account of the passing of the said order in council or by reason of the making of the said land grant, or in any way in con-nectioij therewith or on account thereof.
Resolved, that it be referred to a special committee of five members to investigate an! inquire into the truth of the statement, and matters above set forth and that the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to examine persons on oath or. affirmation, and to report from time to time.
Before saying a few words about the character of the motion which the Prime Minister proposes, I would like to remark that this is very much of a family quarrel between the supporters of the right hon. gentleman, The Prime Minister introduced the subject into the House last Friday, the 28th of April. He then alluded to a gentleman who had had several interviews with him, and who had made charges against one of his colleagues. He did not at that time name the gentleman who had made the charges, nor did he name the colleague. He did, however, refer to an article which had appeared in the Toronto 'Telegram' of the previous day, the 27th of April, and the Prime Minister in bringing the matter to the attention of the House said this:


Wilfrid Laurier: I deem it my duty to call attention to an article which appeared yesterday in the Toronto 'Telegram,' in which direct reference was made to me. The article is a long one, and I need not read it all.
As a matter of fact, the right hon. gentleman read very little of it, and he did not read some of the most important parts. His speech continues as follows:
It will be suflicient to read the matter which has reference to my name. The article proceeds to say that on the 2nd of March this letter was addressed to me.
Then the right hon. gentleman quotes the letter, and one part of that letter quoted is as follows:
Recently evidence has come to me that one of your colleagues is a grafter and a boodler. I shall be in Ottawa for a few days, and am wilting to .submit the evidence to you as Ta.rte was willing to 6ubmit his evidence of the Langevin-McGreevy iboodling to Sir John Macdonald. Should you see fit to take immediate action it would go no further. The alternative would he to place the document,
83 !1

letters and photographs of cheques, &c., in the hands of the opposition.
After quoting that letter, the right hon. gentleman alludes to a letter which was written by his secretary at his direction under date 3rd March, 1911, in which the gentleman who had written this letter to him was informed that the Prime Minister would be in his office at ten o'clock on the following day, Saturday, March 4, and would be ready to see the gentleman who was preferring these charges. Then the right hon. gentleman refers to the interview, and he uses this language:
The gentleman in question waited on me, as Stated in the rest of the letter, several times. Without committing my memory as to the number of times, I know it was more than once, but the tenor of each conversation between us on these occasions was of the same nature. The gentleman in question, with whom I had in former years friendly relations, but with whom I have not been in communication for many years, called on me and gave me the name of one of my colleagues and said that he had lost the confidence of the party, particularly in his own province, that he was a boodler and a grafter, and for these reasons should go out of the government.
Then the right hon. gentleman goes on to state that he had no doubt as to the honesty of his colleague, who was not only a colleague but a personal friend, and that the person who had the interview with him would have to take such steps as he might think fit. To quote the exact language of the right hon. gentleman:
My informant was free to take such stops as he pleased, to place the $&pers and documents in the hands of the opposition, and do anything be pleased with them. If my colleague were then proved to be dishonest, he would have to take the consequences, but if not, it was my duty to stand loyally by him. This is the gist of any conversation that took place between us.
The newspaper article to which the right hon. gentleman here alluded comprised nearly a full page of the Toronto 'Evening Telegram,' and purported to set forth the bank account of the Minister of the Interior and to show there that there had been deposited to his credit two sums of money, one on the 3rd of October, 1907, amounting to $50,000; the other on the 11th September, 1909, amounting to $19,350. The newspaper article to which the Prime Minister alluded, so far as I have been able to examine it, did not indicate any source from which these sums were supposed to have been derived, but this article did urge in a very insistent way that the source of these sums should be disclosed, and that an investigation should be held for that purpose. It now appears from a statement made by the Minister of the Interior in this House yesterday that he was the person to whom allusion had Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
been made in the Toronto 'Telegram', and he based his remarks to some extent upon an article which had later appeared in the Toronto 'World', and the right hon. the Prime Minister, in reply to an inquiry from an hon. member on this side of the House, stated that the gentleman who had the interview with him which was alluded to by the Prime Minister on 28th April last, was Mr. McGillicuddy. The hon. the Minister of the Interior in his statement in reference tc this matter yesterday did not allude to the article which was brought to the attention of the House by the right hon. gentleman but did allude to a despatch which appeared in the Toronto ' World ' of the 28th ult., and which the Minister of the Interior set out in his remarks. There was no reference yesterday by either the Prime Minister or the Minister of the Interior to the article in the 'Evening Telegram' to which the right hon. gentleman had called attention on the previous Friday, nor was there any allusion to the charges or allegations set forth in the various interviews between the Prime Minister and Mr. McGillicuddy. Now, the Prime Minister has thought this newspaper article in the Toronto 'Telegram' worthy of being brought to the attention of the House, and the Minister of the Interior, referring not to that article but to another article which appeared in the Toronto 'World", has challenged a certain suggestion, or suspicion, as it has been called, which appeared in that newspaper; and the Prime Minister basing his action upon the state-ment_ in the House of the Minister of the Interior has asked for an inquiry which is absolutely restricted in its terms to the question as to whether the surmise or suspicion contained in the Toronto 'World' is a true or an untrue statement of the source of these moneys. Well, I think it must be apparent to the right hon. gentleman that if this matter is worthy of investigation, that is not the wav to investigate - it.
There is only one question properly before this House and this country in connection with the matter, and that is:	Whether or not the source
from which these moneys came was a clean and untainted source. You cannot possibly arrive at a conclusion with regard to that by the inquiry which the right hon. gentleman proposes. Let us assume that there are one hundred sources; and one can easily imagine one hundred sources from which that money may have been derived, and in respect of which the acceptance of that money would be regarded as improper or prejudicial to the public interest. What is the position which the right hon. gentleman takes ? Instead of inquiring and investigating as to what the source of the money w'as, he takes one sur-

mise or suspicion in one newspaper, which probably knows no more about it than any other newspaper in the country, and he declares to this House:	We can disprove
that, and, therefore, we will investigate that charge. Well, Mr. Speaker, it does not seem to me that that is worthy either of the occasion or of the government or of the Minister of the Interior himself or of this parliament. If there is to be any investigation upon this question, let it be an investigation which will satisfy parliament, and the country that the Minister of the Interior is absolutely free from any charge or suspicion of unworthy motives or unworthy conduct in this matter. That can only be done by disclosing the source from which these sums of money came. It can be settled in five minutes before a committee of this House. If it came from the private resources of the Minister of the Interior, all he has to do is to go before that committee and show that. That will settle the matter for all time. But to go before a committee of this House and say, here _rs one source as to which an unworthy suspicion is cast, and it did not come from that source, while you leave open to conjecture fifty or a hundred other sources from which the money might have come, surely would not satisfy the conscience of this House, the conscience of the Minister of the Interior or the reasonable desire of the people of this country to have this mystery cleared up in so far as mystery is attached to it, In that connection I would like to say just one word as to some past investigations.
I do not know whether the Prime Minister would regard it as a serious thing, an unjustifiable thing, that a conclusive inquirv of the kind I have suggested should be made. I may be told that it is not a right or proper thing to have the deposits of large sums of money to the credit of a minister of the Crown investigated. But I did not hear any very great complaint or any great murmuring from the right hon. gentleman ot from any of his colleagues when the bank accounts of my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and other hon. gentlemen then members of this House were investigated by a Royal Commission which he himself appointed, the books of their bankers brought into court and exposed to the investigation of counsel, and the men themselves called before that commission to be cross-examined not only as to the source from which the moneys had come, but as to the disposition which they had made of those moneys, and that simply for the reason that a crossexamining counsel had some hint given to him that it might be a desirable thing to investigate those bank accounts; and as a matter of fact the investigation was made in more than one instance for reasons altogether out of the legitimate scope of
the inquiry. What is the position the Prime Minister takes now? He proposes to select one possible source which he believes can be disproved, and to prevent any further inquiry or investigation into the source or origin of these moneys. Does my right hon. friend seriously think that he will be clearing up this matter or solving this mystery by taking any such course as that?
I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, and I say this with all respect, that such an inquiry as the Prime Minister proposes would be a pure farce, and I would not advise any hon. gentleman on this side of the House to have any part in it. It is merely a piece of stage play, made not for the purpose of a real investigation, but for the purpose of disproving a suspicion or conjecture which the Tight hon. gentleman believes can be easily disproved, and without giving any opportunity whatever to investigate the real source and origin of these sums. Under these circumstances I think I am entirely justified in moving:
That all the words after the word 'that' in the proposed motion be omitted, and the following substituted therefor: A special committee of five members be appointed to inquire into and investigate the charges and allegations set forth and referred to in the statement of the Prime Minister made in this House on Friday, the 28th day of April last, and the charges and allegations 6et forth and deferred to in the statements of the Hon. Mr. Oliver, Minister of the Interior, and of the Prime Minister, made in this House on Tuesday, the 2nd day of May instant, and that the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and examine witnesses on oath and affirmation and report from time to time.
I propose this motion in this way because I understand in view of the statement of the Prime Minister and the article which he brought to the attention of the House, that it will open up this whole matter for investigation by that committee. That was the intent and desire of the Prime Minister when he made his remarks in this House on the 28th of April last, if he had any real desire or intention of having this matter investigated. A motion of this nature, which is'confined to statements made in this House, set forth in speeches of ministers of the Crown in this House, in [DOT] respect of a matter as to which charges have been made against a minister of the Crown, surely cannot be objected to by any hon. gentleman on the other side of the House. It is quite true, it may bring in allegations and statements set forth in the Toronto ' Evening Telegram,' but that is due-to the fact that the Prime Minister himself, having observed these statements, has seen fit to bring them to the attention of : the House; and having been brought by i him to the attention of the House, they are t surely to be taken account of in any inves-

tigation which the right hon. gentleman proposes to make in respect of a matter which he himself was the first to introduce. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I feel it my duty to press this amendment in order that the scope of the proposed inquiry may not be restricted, but may be just as wide as the Prime Minister "himself made it when he first spoke in this House oh this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: Mr. Speaker, I submit to the fairness of members of this House, that the amendment submitted by my hon. friend would not in any way meet the justice of the case and be fair to my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior. It is true that on Friday last I spoke on the matter, but in.what respect? I quoted from an article published in the Toronto 'Evening Telegram ' of the day before to the effect that a gentleman, with whom I had been formerly acquainted, had stated to me that he could bring charges against one of my colleagues, and the article seemed to take me to task because I had taken no steps to investigate that statement. Well, I drew the attention of the House to the matter simply to inform it that I had told the gentleman who called on me, that if he had any charges to make against my colleague, he should make them. I also called attention to the alternative given in the letter which had been addressed to me, namely, that Mr. Oliver-the gentleman in question-should go out of the cabinet and that would set the matter at rest, or otherwise it would be made public. I replied that I did not consider it my duty to take any notice of charges made in that way and that the gentleman who made them should go on and make them public. So far there was nothing but a general statement. In addressing the House I simply gave it the correspondence which had been placed in my hands. In that correspondence as published no charges were made against anybody by name, no charge was made against anybody in particular, no facts were given. But the following day another newspaper, the Toronto ' World,' made, not a charge, but an insinuation, against my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of the Interior, Mr. Oliver. That insinuation was to the effect that in the month of May, 1907, he had made a recommendation to council to substitute, for certain lands situated in Manitoba, which had been given as subsidies to a certain railway, certain other lands in the province of Saskatchewan, inferring, though not asserting, that the latter were of greater value than those originally given. This was a specific fact, it was something tangible, but there was no direct charge. Nobody took the responsibility of coming Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)
forward and making a charge. There was however, an insinuation based on certain facts set forth in that newspaper. My hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Oliver), might very well have waited. He might very well have said: * Certain insinuations have been made against me and I am ready to meet an accusation if any be made.' He, however, did not wait for a charge but he said: There is an insinuation made in that newspaper against me and I challenge investigation.
Now, my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), says that the investigation asked for by my hon. friend and colleague, is restricted. But how much more could it be extended? What is there to investigate except this insinuation-not a direct charge at all-that certain lands were improperly substituted for others for the benefit of a certain railway company. It will not do for this House, or the other House, to investigate rumours floating in the air, things which are not tangible, which cannot be taken account of. The moment a specific fact was brought up, and an insinuation based upon it, tt y hon. friend' and colleague said:	I deny
the insinuation and am prepared to show it is not true. What more could he do? If there is anybody in this House, or out of it, who will bring against my hon. friend and colleague, any specific accusation of any kind whatever, it will be the duty of my hon. friend, and colleague to meet that, but here we have nothing of the kind. The article in the ' Telegram ' is made up of vague insinuations. In the article of the Toronto ' World,' however, which was published the following day and which referred to this first article in the ' Telegram,' there was the specific fact I have just stated. My hon. friend then comes forward and says he is prepared to show there is no foundation for it.
But my hon. friend, the leader of the oposition (Mr. Borden), says there is something suspicious, there is the possibility that there was $50,000 given for other purposes. But when we have the statement that the $50,000 was given as a consideration for a certain order in council, is it not right and proper that this allegation should be investigated, and that thi3 is the very thing which should be looked into? I submit to the fairness of my hon. friend and everybody else, that my hon. friend and colleprgue (Mri Oliver), has taken the only course he could. He did not wait for a charge, but the moment there was an insinuation which could be reached, he asked for the opportunity to show that it had no foundation.
My hon. friend (Mr. Borden), has said that we had no consideration for the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster).

I did not want to bring the name of that hon. gentleman into this matter. A commission was appointed in his case, that commission did its duty according to its lights, and that has nothing to do with this matter. If any one has any charges to make against my colleague, outside of this House or in it, of course it will be the duty of my hon. friend and colleague to meet them. [DOT]
My hon. friend (Mr. Borden), said a moment ago that the money might have come from a thousand different sources. Certainly it might. But are you going to fish to find out those sources? Is that what my hon. friends would call justice?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Yes.
Sir WILFRID LAURlfiR. If any one has any charge to make regarding the source from which this money has been paid, it is for him to come forward and make a charge. But my hon. friend (Mr. Borden), wants my hon. friend and colleague (Mr. Oliver), to prove a negative, to show that he did not get the money from this source or another.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not say that.


Wilfrid Laurier: Of course not, but that is what my hon. friend's motion means.


Robert Laird Borden: I am s_ure my right hon. friend has no desire to misquote me. What I said was that the whole question could be cleared up by proving the source from which the money did come.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is a specific charge that this money came from a certain source.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the use of saying ' no '? You have the statement in the Toronto ' World.' If the money came from any other source, it would be for the parties claiming that it did. to come forward and make a charge. But my hon. friend's motion asks us "to do a thing which is unheard, of in parliamentary justice or in any court of law, namely, to force a man to prove his own innocence. My hon. friend wants the Minister of the Interior to go into the box and prove that he is innocent. Well, the rule of law is that the guilt of a man must be proved and not his innocence. That is the basic principle of British justice, and that is the principle on which I rely when I ask that this amendment be not accepted.


Hon. GEO. E. FOSTER (North Toronto).: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me that the Prime Minister in his desire to play up quickly and efficiently to the Minister of the Interior has not sufficiently looked at the article in the ' World ' or if he has, I think his statement to-day has gone a little beyond what that article would carry it. If I understood the right hon. gentleman correctly, he has made an argument upon what he says was a direct allegation made in the ' World ' that the moneys in question came from a certain source. That article reads:
Ottawa, April 27 (Special).-The sensational charges made by a Toronto newspaper against one of the ministers of the federal government at Ottawa was.no surprise here. The facts of the case have been pretty well known for some time, and it is expected that the matter will come up in parliament at an early date.
It is understood that Hon. Frank Oliver is the minister against whom the charge is made. The story at Ottawa is that Mr. Oliver had an order in council passed on May 8, 1907, giving the Canadian Northern railway the power to select in Saskatchewan the whole of the land granted by the government to the Manitoba and Southeastern, which is the Canadian Northern in Manitoba, in 1890, in all 600,000 acres. In 1907, there were no lands left in Manitoba, it was alleged, and the com- * pany was given the right to select its lands in Saskatchewan.
That statement stands by itself, and is complete as far as that transaction is /concerned. Then follows another statement:
In the same year, $50,COO was deposited from the Manhattan Bank of New York to the Imperial Bank at Edmonton in the name of Mr. Oliver. The exact date was October 3, 1907. About one year later, just before the general election cf 1908, the sum of $19,000 was deposited from the Manhattan Bank in the name of Mr. Oliver at the Imperial Bank at Edmonton. It is known that he chequed out this money for campaign purposes.
That is the other statement. Where does the Prime Minister get his authority for stating that the Toronto ' World ' specifically stated that the money which went into the bank at Edmonton to the credit of the minister was paid to him or into that bank for him by the Canadian Northern railway?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER Hear, hear.


George Eulas Foster: Will the Prime Minister say whether or not such a statement is made there? He knows it is not. My right hon. friend smiles over this because he is thinking in the back of his head: Well, there are two items placed together so that if anybody wishes to he can infer that what the Toronto ' World ' meant was that there probably, if you dug into it, you might find the source from which the money came. But that is not a direct allegation. Two statements are made and persons reading the statements may take a certain inference from their being

so placed. But there is a difference between an inference and a direct allegation. My right hon. friend would perhaps. have been perfectly right in stating that the two statements were so deftly placed, side by side, that it might lead any one to infer that the money came from the Canadian Northern to the credit of the minister. I would no,t have found any fault with that statement oi the case, but when he tries to make this House or the country believe that the Toronto ' World ' made a specific state ment, made an allegation that Mr. Olivei (received his money from the Canadian Northern railway out of that transaction, he is undertaking a task which he cannot perform in this House, or in the country. No such allegation was made by the ' World.' The minister had to do that in order to find a basis for demanding a committee of inquiry.
With reference to this whole matter the Prime Minister has to-day not gone very lengthily, or very fully into the case, but he has made certain statements. He says that the amendment which is. moved by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition would not be fair to the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). What does 'the amendment call for? It calls for an investigation into the basic facts which were brought out by the Prime Minister himself, and made a public question by the Prime Minister on April 28. This question would not have been before the House as a public matter as it is to-day if it had not been for the action of the Prime Minister himself. The Prime* Minister bases his action, so he told this House, on an article which appeared in the ' Telegram ' the day preceding, if I remembei aright, on April 27. The Prime Minister told this House that having seen and read that article and found what was stated in it, he deemed it of so much importance that he considered it was no longer in the category of a private, or personal matter and he brought it to the attention of this House in order to make his own position fair and clear before the House. How did he make his own position clear? He endeavoured to do so by referring to another gentleman who had nothing to do with the ' Telegram,' and to other information which did not come through the ' Tele gram ' to him at all, but had come through conversations which took place between Mr. Gillicuddy and himself, conferences more than one, from letters which passed be. tween Mr. McGillicuddy and himself, and from absolute specific charges which were made by McGillicuddy to the Prime Min ister himself with reference to the Minister of the Interior. Is not that where the right hon gentleman got his information? Is that not the information on which he based his statement in the House on Fri-Mr. FOSTER.
day last? Then why does he need to look to the Toronto ' World ' which commented upon certain matters of which the Prime Minister had absolute knowledge from six or seven conferences that he himself had with the man who made the charges? I say then that the basic charge, the only charge in which this House is interested, the only charge in which the country is interested, is the charge made by Mr. Daniel McGillicuddy to the Prime Minister himself, and that charge was that the Prime Minister had a minister in his cabinet who was a grafter and a boodler, and that he had the evidence with him to prove that he was a grafter and a boodler, and he offered that evidence to the Prime Minister as a friend, and a Liberal, and a beneficiary of old times.
Will the Prime Minister deny that? What are the facts, then, that Mr. McGillicuddy laid before the Prime Minister? The facts were admitted by the Prime Minister himself, and the Prime Minister's answer to the specific charges was given before the House. What was the evidence that Mr. McGillicuddy laid before my right hon. friend? Did my right hon. friend, as the keeper of the conscience of his government and the honour of the public men surrounding him, men in whom this country is interested as well, did the Prime Minister look into, investigate and weigh that evidence? Will he say that he did? Or did he refuse to look at that evidence, and spend his time in an endeavour to switch off Mr. McGillicuddy from pursuing a course that he, as a friend of the party, thought it was his duty to pursue in order to cleanse the cabinet of which he was a supporter. Will the right hon. gentleman tell this House now whether he refused or not to look into the evidence which was given by Mr. McGillicuddy, which he had in his hand? Will he say so? I take it from what he said that he refused to look into that evidence. His statement to this House bears me out in coming to that conclusion. He stood ou his dignity. His statement to the House is:	I told Mr. McGillicuddy that
I would not look into the matter, that I would not investigate the matter, that I would not give him a decision on the matter. Why? Because Mr. McGillicuddy said to me:	Sir Wilfrid, here are my charges;
Sir Wilfrid, here are my proofs. I want you to take these charges >and see whether-these proofs substantiate them. If they do, I want you to purge your cabinet of the minister against whom I make the charges, and if you do that it will remain a family matter. You and I are both Liberals. I have supported you for many a long year, I have written for you. You have supported me in a way, I was a beneficiary of yours

for a time and enjoyed your confidence as a friend of the party, and as such I put this up to you. I say to you now: Investigate this and do your duty, as I consider you ought to do it in this matter. If my proofs are correct and sufficient, then I want you to do your duty by the party. If you do not, I must take them elsewhere, for I am not going to stop with your refusal. That is where my right hon. friend parted company with Mr. McGillicuddy, that is where he showed his keen sense of his duty to the public and the country. Got a little huff on him, stood on his dignity, and shook his fist in the face of Mr. McGillicuddy, and said: Aha, you threaten me, do you, that if I do not take this matter up and look into it you will go to the leader of the opposition? That separates you from me. I will not allow my dignity to be infringed upon in that way. You should have crouched to me, Mr. McGillicuddy; you should have said to me: I your most humble and obedient servant, beg you to look into those things, give your judgment upon them, and then, whatever you tell me to do, I your obedient servant will do. Be sure that it will never go out from the room in which we two are talking about it now. That would have pleased my right hon. friend. Mr. McGillicuddy is a man with a conscience, I suppose, with a history, with a purpose. His own record is one as a Liberal through and through. Having got hold of what he thought was a case of malfeasance in office, having the proofs by which he believed he could substantiate that, he came to his own Prime Minister and asked his Prime Minister to look into it. My belief is that the Prime Minister refused to look into the evidence altogether, and his statement to the House goes to prove it. He told the House the reason why he and Mr. McGillicuddy parted company:	I could not stand his putting
it up to me in this way; you look into it and it will go no further, but if you do not, I shall have to take it further. I ask my right hon. friend if he will put himself in the place of Mr. McGillicuddy. Suppose we argue it out in this way, that the Prime Minister was in Mr. McGillicuddy's place, that he was in possession of this information, that he had these proofs, that he was an honest man, as we will suppose that the Prime Minister is; and the Prime Minister standing in that position, with these facts and the proof behind him, goes to the man in power and says:	In the interest of public life and the purity of public life, I put these things before you as a friend, and I ask you to act upon them. See if the proofs are sufficient to substantiate my charges, and if they are, do your duty. If you refuse I must go further. Will my right hon. friend imagine himself 263
in that position, and then if the man to whom he applies says to him: Well, Sir, I will not treat with you on that ground at all. You tell me that if I do not look into these things you will take them to some one else. If that is your position I refuse to do anything. Would he not, if honest, be bound to say:	But I am a man
with a public duty, and I refuse to be balked because you decline to look into these things, and investigate them and do what I think is your duty. Would not my right hon. friend be doing his duty if he did that? The simple question I ask my hon. friend is this:	Does he believe that
Mr. McGillicuddy, not being able to get the Prime Minister to make the investigation, should not persist in going on and getting somebody else, to bring force enough to have the investigation made? I do not think my right hon. friend can hold otherwise. The basic fact then is the charge that wa's made by Mr. McGillicuddy. '
Now, what happens? It is extremely farcical, it seems to me. The Minister of the Interior sits tight. I do not blame my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior in sitting tight if he thinks that is the best way to do. The Minister of the Interior, as he sits there, is not a man proved guilty of anything, he sits there perfectly innocent, so far as any proof that is before this House or this country is concerned. He has a perfect right to maintain his innocence and to maintain his position by all the means in his power. But the Minister of the Interior must recollect that he is not a private person. The investigation which was brought by the Prime Minister himself is not an investigation into the private business of the Minister of the Interior. We are simply pressing for a fuller investigation, which will not be abortive but effective, in a matter which the Prime Minister himself brought up because he considered it to be of public importance.
Now, the Minister of the Interior, besides being a man, is a public officer of this country, and the gist of the charges is that the Minister of the Interior had a bank account in which large sums appeared to his credit in two separate amounts, and that these moneys, according to the man who makes the charge, were not properly obtained, and were not properly paid out. That is the charge. There is no other before this House. The Minister of the Interior can dispose of this matter in five minutes if he chooses. We have to take facts as they appear and circumstances as we know them. Few cabinet ministers are rich men; at least, they are not when they start in as cabinet ministers. There have been some exceptions, which, I hope proves the rule, where cabinet ministers have started in most mighty poor, and have come out most mighty rich. Well, as



a rule, then, we will say that a cabinet minister generally starts in poor and if he remains honest he generally comes out about as poor, or a good deal poorer, than he started in. The Minister of the Interior is a man like the rest of us, and I do not think lays claim to any great wealth. I do not think he did when he came in as a minister, and I do not believe that he would now. When a bank account is portrayed to the members of this House, and to the people of this country in which a poor cabinet minister gets a deposit of $70,000 in two sums, it makes people think; that is all. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior will not object to people thinking if the matter is made public. He himself would think if it occurred in the case of another, and he would say:	Where under heaven
did that man-that poor cabinet minister get a $70,000 deposit to his credit? That would be the natural question which would come to men's! minds. He is engaged in politics, he is fighting battles, battles are fought by various weapons; was this one of the weapons with which political battles were fought? Was that a contribution for political purposes put at the minister's credit, where did the money come from, and did he check it out for political purposes? If he did he is amenable to public opinion as a minister in the cabinet taking in large sums of money, putting them to his credit, and using them to fight political battles which is to debauch the electorate. So that, if there was no personal dishonesty at all, if it comes out, or is the fact, that the minister's bank account show these large sums improperly obtained as political contributions, and that he then checks them out in the way of political payments, he is amenable to the Prime Minister, he is amenable to this House, and he is amenable to the country as well.
I said that the minister could settle this in five minutes. He could inform this House in what business he was engaged which brought him in, on these two dates, payments of $50,000, and of $20,000. If he did so it would clarify the position. If that $70,000 was business profits would not the Minister of the Interior settle this whole question and allay all suspicion by immediately rising in the House, and giving the details of the business which brought in these large deposits? Then he can go on and give the details of the checking out in the course of his business. That would settle the matter very largely; that would clarify it. The Minister of the Interior is his own judge as to whether he will take that course, or not. He does not choose to take that course. What course did he take? I am free to say that he took a course which I do not think helps his position before the House, or the country. He really does Mr. FOSTER.
this, when you bring it down to plain English; he forages around, finds a paper which comments upon the basic charges made by Mr. MeGillicuddy to the Prime Minister, and partly brought out in the ' Telegram ' article, he finds in one of the newspapers a comment which seems to him to be heaven-sent, two statements side by side without an insinuation, the minister manufactures an insinuation, treats that as a charge, and then asks this House to appoint a committee to investigate his own charge based upon an insinuation. That is all he does. If the minister had said; I received that $70,000 in the way of honest transactions, I deny that there was anything dishonest in it, I am a public man, and this is now a public matter, I invite this House to appoint a committee which shall investigate that, and I will put my bank books, and my cheque books before the committee, it would settle this question in short order. He does not do that. It is as if there is a charge made against a man, and the man against whom the charge is made, not wishing to face it, looks around and says: No, this charge does not suit me at all, and that other charge does not suit me, but here is one that I make myself, and that I would like you to investigate. If every man who had charges against him in the courts or otherwise had latitude allowed him to do that same thing almost anybody could make a very plausible, and good defence.
The Prime Minister leaped to the occasion, and he had his resolution ready to empower a committee to investigate-what?- to investigate a charge that the minister himself made in reference to himself, on two parallel passages, stating what were the facts, but making no insinuations as to what the facts led to, and making no allegations of any kind at all. I think that what ought to be done, if anything is done, and the least that can be done, is to investigate the charges which were made by Mr. MeGillicuddy. If the minister will not clear the matter up himself, as he could do in very short order, then let a committee be struck, and let it have the scope to determine whether or not the facts which Mr. MeGillicuddy alleges in his charge, and which the Prime Minister thoroughly knows, are well founded, to investigate that to the extent at least of the payments, and deposits in the bank account which evidently form the basis of Mr. McGillicuddy's charges, and which is of the essence of the ' Telegram's * article, and charges so far as they are preferred by the ' Telegram ' in that respect.
For, let it be thoroughly understood that the ' Telegram ' made no statement with reference to the order in council granting the choice of selecting these lands to the

Canadian Northern Railway Company. What the ' Telegram ' said is this:
There are theories as to the origin and significance of the deposits of $69,340 on the credit side of the bank account. These theories cannot be tried out in these columns, or in the proceedings that might follow the disclosure of names and identities.
This journal has tried to stick to the facts and leave theories to the parliamentary tribunals that can test such theories. The truth or falsity of the charges which warring Liberals urge against a cabinet minister of their own political faith was tried by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and decided in favour of the cabinet minister. The facts and issue of that trial are matters of public interest. Everj minister of the Crown should be prepared to have the origin of his bank deposits shouted from the housetops.
Publicity is the great cure for the ills of public life in Canada, and facts that were forced upon the attention of this journal could not be suppressed without making the ' Telegram ' a party to the conspiracy of silence that clothes in the robes of secrecy proceedings that should be fought out and controversies that should be decided iu a blaze of publicity.
So that Mr. Speaker, the Toronto ' Telegram ' itself was absolutely silent as to the source from which the money came. It exposed the photograph; its letter-press wojk brought, out certain other incidents, and made reference to certain other facts, but the ' Telegram ' absolutely said nothing with reference to the order in council, or any other possible source of the money which was deposited to the credit of the minister in the bank account. I, therefore, think that the Prime Minister has not been well advised when he attempts to limit the scope of the investigation to something outside of the ' Telegram ' article, and outside of Mr. McGillicuddy's charges, and bases it upon a chance guess; not even a chance guess, but bases it upon two statements of fact made by the Toronto ' World ' without any allegation direct or specific that there was a connection between the facts, allowing it to the minister to infer that there is such an insinuation, and such a connection. It seemed to me that the Minister of the Interior has been badly advised in endeavouring to cut out and shut away the real charges and to base his effort at exoneration upon something which was not included in Mr. McGillicuddy's charges so far as we know, and was not included in the Toronto ' Telegram ' article. One single word at the end-I am not here as a member of parliament to say that the Minister of the Interior is guilty of any wrong-doing in this matter. I am not here to say so. I would not say so. I am here to state another thing; that I will be glad if the Minister of the Interior shows himself to be absolutely clear in this matter I have 263i
been long enough in public life, and I have had enough iron driven into my soul to know that it is not pleasant for a man's reputation to be put in stake and wrongfully be tried out, and I hope that every man in public life who has any charge brought against him will be able to substantiate the falsity of that charge. I have never had a charge brought against me as to my public life; never once. I believe that I can stand any charge that any man whose face is above clay can make against me in that respect. I have had charges made against my private life, and my private business, and in my opinion very unwarranted ones, and ones which were very unwarrantedly prosecuted; and, there are men in this House that went beyond what any decent Christian should. But, trying to be a decent Christian myself, I have no hard feelings against any man in this House, not one. My character will stand for what it is worth, and what God knows it to be, and for no more and no less. Therefore, I say that I will be glad if the Minister of the Interior shows that this whole thing is a tissue of falsehoods, and has no foundation in fact. But as a friend I would advise him to take hold of this matter frankly, and to lay before this House and the country, or a committee if he chooses, every transaction in that bank account of his. If the business is honest he can afford to do it; if he does not doit, I fear that many men will have a suspicion that he does not do it because he is not able to do it, and that I should be sorry to believe.


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I wish to offer a very few remarks to this House in regard to this matter so unpleasant to me. My view of the important features of the matter differs materially from the view expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Foster). It appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the question which is of interest to the House and of interest to the country is the question as to how those who are charged with the responsibility of administration in this government discharge that responsibility; whether honestly or dishonestly, fairly or unfairly, in the interest of the public or not in the interest of the public. As to what private transactions any person may have it is quite true that when an improper connection is established between these private transactions and public responsibility then the public have an interest and a serious interest, but as long as private transactions are private transactions, as long as they are not connected with public responsibilities, I submit Mr. Speaker, that however, public curiosity may be aroused, however, public interest may be inflamed from other causes or in other ways,

these matters are not in any degree in the same class or entitled to the same consideration. as .the discharge of public responsibilities. In regard to my action, I do not wish the House or the country to understand that I am in any way trying to shirk investigation into any administrative act of mine. The article read by the Prime Minister from the Toronto ' Telegram ' did not allude to me specifically, that is to say my name was not mentioned, and there is no evidence in that article that I could put before the House or before the country that there was an allusion to me. Therefore, it was not for me to act. There was an allusion- in the article to the Prime Minister, and it was for the Prime Minister to take his own course in regard to that. But when the Toronto ' World ' came out specifically mentioning my name and specifically connecting me with an act of administration, which although it did not specifically charge that that act of administration was connected with certain private transactions, still, as my hon. friend will admit, conveyed an insinuation. Now, it is true that I might have been satisfied with denying the insinuation or with saying nothing about it. But I do not know that .that would be fair to the House or to the country or to my friends. There was an insinuation, and a serious insinuation, which related to an important administrative act for which I was primarily responsible, and I think it is only right that the country should know and have the earliest opportunity of knowing, what foundation there was for that insinuation. In regard to that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition has suggested-he has been unkind enough to suggest-that the money which was deposited to my credit might have come from a thousand different sources. He was perfectly correct in that. I want to say to the House, what is within the knowledge of the members on both _ sides, that the transactions of the Interior Department during the six years that I have been at its head have been necessarily of such a character as to make possible the securing of contributions from day to day of large ot small amounts. Everybody knows that.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to interrupt the minister for a moment. In the first place, I did not say a thousand. In the second place, I used the word 'hundred' without the slightest idea of making any insinuation or suggestion, but merely by way of argument. I do not want the minister to be under any misapprehension as to that. I was merely saying that if you select one particular source, you do not clear the whole matter up. I did not wish to make any insinuation or suggestion whatever as to matters Mr. OLIVER.*
of fact. It was using that argument only in the way of an illustration.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to press the point. I was only using it as an argument, too.


Robert Laird Borden: I was making no insinuation.


Frank Oliver: I do not wish to make any suggestion of that kind, but such a view might be drawn from the hon. gentleman's remarks.


Robert Laird Borden: I did not intend it.


Frank Oliver: I very much appreciate the consideration of the hon. leader of the opposition in making that statement. But what I want to say is this. I have been at the head of the Interior _ Department for the last six years, and in that time there have been from day to day administrative acts involving values of large and small amounts which might be laid under contribution for political purposes or for any other purpose either private or political. Now, I want to say, so far as I am concerned, that, although the motion before the House has reference to a specific case, the only ease with which my name has been specifically connected, I court inquiry, and the fullest inquiry, by parliamentary committee or otherwise, into any administrative act of mine of all the thousands that have taken place, and of all the millions of dollars of value that they have involved. I say I court the fullest inquiry into any of all those thousands of acts, in the House or in the committee or anywhere else; and I want the House distinctly to understand that as far as I am concerned, there is no restriction to the particular charge mentioned, because it was the only specific case in which my name was mentioned.
Now, my hon. friend said that I might -clear the whole matter up as to my bank account by a simple statement as to the source from which this money came, and the direction to which it was diverted. I have no doubt that is a fact, that I -could take that action, and could clear this whole matter up. But I conceive my duty to be this: I do not think it is in the interest of Canada, I do not think it is in the interest of the public life of Canada, that upon an insinuation based upon theft, and put forward as blackmail, a man in public or private life in Canada should be compelled to expose his private business. I do not think that it would add to the dignity of parliament or to the standing of public life in Canada to say that parliament should be the assistant of thugs and blackmailers by requiring the exposure of a bank account on -such a

statement as has been put before the public. The committee which has been asked for will have every opportunity to establish any connection that can be established between my bank account and that transaction or any other transaction that may :be brought forward in a similar way. But I say I do not think that it would be right or wise or that it would tend to the dig-taity of parliament, to the standing of public life or to the good of the country, "that, because a thug or a blackmailer should make a statement in regard to a man's private bank account, thereupon the authority of parliament should be invoked to expose that bank account to the public, no matter what the consequence might be to the man involved or no matter who might be affected by it. My hon. friend says that I am in public life and I cannot dissociate my personality from my position. That is true; but at the same time I have a responsibility to the public in Tegard to my public position that I have not in regard to my private transactions. So far as that is concerned, I am absolutely in the hands of parliament, and I ask for an investigation of any public account for which I am responsible to parliament and the country, which affects the welfare and the rights of the country; and I do not make the exposure which my hon. friend suggests for the purpose of clearing up my bank account, for the reason I have stated, that I do not think the public interest, the public welfare or the standing of the public men of Canada would be benefited by my doing so.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: Mr. Speaker, I would not have said anything on this matter but for the fact that I do not think the original motion exactly covers the ground in the information that was given to the House in the first place by the Prime Minister. What was the Prime Minister's statement to. the House in Tegard to this case? He did not give names, but he said:
I deem it my duty to call attention to an art-iole which appeared yesterday in the Toronto 'Telegram,' in which direct reference was made to me. The article is a long one, and I need not read it all. _ It will he sufficient to read the matter which has reference to my name. The article proceeds to say that on the 2nd of March this letter was addressed to me:
My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I see that you are having troubles of your own by the defection of the 'young Napoleon' on the trade question and in other ways.
The other ways are the more serious. Only in one instance in the history of Canada has the trade question played a part in making or unmaking governments, and that was in 1878. Neither your government nor any other government will fall except from weakness
on the .inside. That was what happened to the Tories in 1898. Ministers of the cabinet had become corrupt, and the McGreevy-Lange-vin scandal, aided by the Manitoba School Bill and cabinet crookedness did the rest.
Then the writer gives information that is of interest to the House to-day:
Recently evidence has come to me that one of your colleagues is a grafter and a boodler.
I shall be in Ottawa for a few days, and am willing to submit the evidence to you.
That was the allegation, namely, that one of the Prime Minister's; colleagues was a grafter and a boodler. No doubt the writer of that letter told the right hon. gentleman who that colleague was. He also said that he would be in Ottawa in a few days and was prepared to submit the evidence. The writer proceded to say that .should the Prime Minister take immediate action, he would go no further, but in the event of the right hon. gentleman failing to do so, he would place the documents, letters, photographs of cheques, &c., in the hands of the opposition. He thus declared that he had the evidence in his possession. But what did the right hon. the Prime Minister say in his winding up? He said:
This is the position I take, and I leave that position in the hands of parliament and the country.
He thus handed the matter over to parliament and the country and did nothing himself. But on account of another article following that one, which appeared in the Toronto ' World,' the right hon. gentleman took this matter up again, and in pursuance of the article and a statement made by the Minister of the Interior, he proposed [that )a commisision should toe appointed to inquire into the allegation contained in the Toronto ' World '-not into the allegations made toy this "friend of his in that letter which the right hon. gentleman read to this House. The only allegations he deemed it necessary to have the commission inquire into were those published in the Toronto ' World.' But what *were the allegations in the letter sent to the Prime Minister and which he read to the House? One of them was that the right hon. gentleman had a colleague who was a grafter and a boodler, and had improperly become possessed of certain moneys which were placed to his credit in the bank, and that certain portions of these moneys were disbursed for improper purposes, and the party who made these allegations said he had the documents to prove them. It seems to me, therefore, that if we appoint a commission of inquiry, that inquiry should be extended to cover these allegations. The right hon. gentleman knows the party who gave him

the information, but he did not disclose his name to the House "when he said he handed over the whole matter to parliament to deal with. In my opinion the commission of inquiry which we are asked to appoint should he instructed to ascertain whether these allegations are based on fact or otherwise, and should call on the individual who made them to submit those documents, letters, photographs, &c., and other evidence, and let parliament satisfy itself as to the truth of these charges. But if the right hon. the Prime Minister confines the scope of that inquiry to what is contained in another paper which was not before the House at that time at all, he will not satisfy the country that he has done his full duty.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: The question before the House narrows itself into limits that are certainly not of any great breadth. The question is simply as between the motion and the amendment and as to the form in which this matter ought to go to a committee of inquiry. It is to be borne in mind that this committee of inquiry has been asked for by the member of this House who is, so far as personal considerations go, particularly concerned. He has been for the last few days the object of continuous attention on the part of some of the newspapers of this country, and the course he ought to take has necessarily been a question with him to decide. I would ask any one to consider what course he himself would have taken if he had been placed as a public man, in the position in which my hon. friend and colleague, the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), found himself, when the article was published in the Toronto ' Telegram.' I read that article with some care, and without taking up time to go into detail, I may say that the general impression which it leaves on the mind of the reader-at any rate of a reader without any previous knowledge of the circumstances-is that the writer is purporting to give an account of some investigation or proceedings which have recently,-according to his statement, taken place before the Prime Minister in respect to one of the members of his cabinet. In *the article ino name is mentioned. It could not be said who was hinted at or whose bank account it purported to give. Apart altogether from the fact that no one was in any way specifically attacked, there
is,	from first to last, no specific charge in
it.	There is just the general reference to which my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden), has referred, namely, that the Prime Minister was waited upon by a political friend-name not given-and told that one of the members of his cabinet was a grafter and a boodler.


Mr SPROULE.: I ask hon. gentlemen to pause and think, in a spirit of fairness to the man who is now marked out as the one aimed at in that article, how could any one meet such a charge. Would any one suggest that it should be referred to a committee of this House or any tribunal to investigate in order to determine whether or not any individual person was a grafter or a boodler?
If a man writes of another that that other is a thief, then that other person has redress by an action of libel, because there is something specific. But if a man in conversation, or even in writing, limits himself to some vague, unspecified term, which has no recognized meaning in legal terminology, although it may have a perfectly well understood meaning in every day parlance, the position of the man assailed is very different indeed. It may be that it would be libellous, and that it would be the foundation of a civil action for damages, if any newspaper specifically charged a person with being a boodler or a grafter. I do not doubt that under certain circumstances, and if there were facts surrounding the general charge which tended to make it a little more specific, the language would be actionable, but the question was upon the appearance of that article in the ' Telegram ' whether or not the Minister of the Interior could, assuming he was the person intended to be referred to, maintain an action for libel against the proprietors of that newspaper with the slightest hope of success. I cannot undertake to say whether or not the publishers of that paper took the precaution to have the manuscript of that article revised by counsel before it appeared, but I cannot help saying, speaking with some experience as a lawyer, that that impression was left on my mind after reading it, for nothing more carefully guarded, more evidently designed to convey an impression without stating it, more plainly intended to be used not merely for political effect, but fon the purpose of stabbing an opponent in the dark, and behind the back, without the writer, or the publisher incurring any responsibility for what he did, I can scarcely imagine. It was not many days, not many hours, before the allusions of the article were pointed by the appearance in a contemporary newspaper of something a little more specific. Possibly that was not necessary; it may be that there were rumours and hints in the air, passing from mouth to mouth, and from lip to lip, to enable the average reader of the ' Telegram ' article or at least the readers of it who live or are temporarily in this city, to understand who was meant by what was said. But whether or not that is the case it was a very short time before another article appeared which was a little more specific, and which mentioned the

name of the person who was meant by the previous article. When that article appeared, I ask gentlemen to pause, and think again, what course the Minister of the Interior could take in regard to it. Was it actionable? Could he, with any hope of maintaining it, bring an action of libel against the publishers of the Toronto ' World '? The article of the ' World ' is upon the pages of 'Hansard'; it may be looked at by any one interested, and if it is examined it will be seen that again while there is innuendo and insinuation by the way in which sentences are put together, there is no specific allegation of any wrong-doing; there are simply statements of fact which probably are perfectly true, and it is only by the collocation of them in the manner in which the writer has placed them that any injurious meaning is conveyed by the article in question. The Minister of the Interior, so far as he has redress by legal proceeding in any court, was left as perfectly helpless, notwithstanding the statements in the Toronto ' World ' in which his name was used, as he was when the original article appeared in the ' Telegram.'
The only remedy to be thought of for a public man in such a position, wag to demand his right that there should be an inquiry into this matter at the hands of a committee of this House. That course the hon. gentleman has promptly taken. The only point of difference at this stage of the matter that I am able to understand is as to the terms of the reference to the committee. Every member, I presume, is agreed in thinking that, after what has happened, a committee ought to be appointed with power to take evidence under oath and to investigate this thing. The question is what should be referred to that committee. I fully concede the handsome spirit in which this matter has been treated to-day by hon. gentlemen opposite so far as I have been able to follow their observations. I am well assured in my own mind that no one in this House, no matter how strong his political feeling may be, desires to pry into a man's private affairs unnecessarily. It is not a matter of individual curiosity, it is not a matter of one of ourselves satisfying his own mind on this subject, but it is a matter of exposing private business affairs to the public knowledge. The ' Telegram ' newspaper has purported to publish as its evidence of these transactions what is called a photograph of something, a photograph of the evidence. It has been stated in ether newspapers since that photograph appeared that it is not a photograph of the bank account of the Minister of the Inferior at the Bank at Edmonton. I have seen the statement that the head officer of the Imperial Bank
has so declared, and I think there is certain evidence of that kind upon this photograph of the document. It will be noticed at any rate if any one examines the photograph of the document that the date of that $19,000 transaction is said to be 1909, and notwithstanding the statement, or the appearance on the photograph of the figures 1909 as being the date of that transaction, the whole point of the matter in the various newspapers, so far as that transaction is concerned, has been that it was money used in the general elections of 1908. I think that circumstance demonstrates that the photograph is probably, while a true photograph, not the photograph of an authentic document, and I think that the probabilities will corroborate the statement attributed to the cashier of the bank that this is not a photograph of a bank account. It does not look on the face of it like the work which would appear on a ledger page of a bank, and my theory is in that regard that certainly the bank or any official of the bank would never make public unnecessarily the business of one of its customers. My supposition is that some one has surreptitiously stolen a copy of the account, in other words has sought to make a copy of some ledger account appearing in the books of the bank at Edmonton, and has not copied correctly.
The photograph, of course, does not lie, but the document which has been photographed I feel no doubt is not any page of any ledger of a bank. That, however, is a matter of detail into which I did not intend to digress. I want to say merely this:	This account, while it is a
private account of the Minister of the Interior, is not his private account in the ordinary sense of the word. It is an account in trust, he is trustee for other persons unnamed and unknown. Is it a matter of mystery that, in connection-with some trust estate, a large payment may be made, or large disbursements paid out? It is not at any rate an unusual thing in the handling of many trust accounts. This circumstance, perhaps, increases the difficulty of the position in which the Minister of the Interior finds himself. He is obliged, in a sense, to formulate the charge. He comes before the House and he says to the House: The only specific thing which is here is the collocation of these circumstances in the articles which appeared in the Toronto ' World ' by which the ground appears to be laid for an inference or a supposition that the two things are connected, and that I got this money for something connected with the administration of my department; that because 600,000 acres of land was given in Saskatchewan instead of Manitoba to the Canadian Northern railway, and because that was done upon my recommendation as Minister of the Interior, then this

$50,000 -which came to my account four months afterwards was connected with it and was the result of it. It is perfectly true that he puts those two things together. That is only doing- what the mind, perhaps, of every reader would have done the moment his eye ran over the article. It is perfectly true that no man in this House has made any such suggestion. But I ask hon. gentlemen to consider what was the Minister of the Interior to do. Has he not, in putting those two things together in the statement which he made to this House yesterday, stated as fairly as words can state it, the gist of what is insinuated or suggested by the article in the 'World ' newspaper? If he has not, if any one has any suggestion of omission or variation in that regard, I am perfectly sure, from what I know of my hon. friend, that it is one he would be very willing to receive. That is the only thing in the nature of a specific charge which has appeared in any way before this House, or anywhere, from first to last, in connection with this matter, and accordingly that is incorporated in the terms of the resolution proposed by the First Minister-
Now, it is the first right of any person who is accused that he should know something specifically - of what it is he has to answer. More than that, it is the first right surely of the committee of investigation that it should have, with some reasonable accuracy defined before it that which it has to inquire into. In this case the question for consideration now is properly, as it has been put by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House, whether a specific thing, which is the only thing specific that can be framed or deduced from the newspaper articles which have appeared, should be the subject of investigation, or whether the matter should go at large pitchforked before a committee of this House, for that committee to inquire whether or not the hon. gentleman is a grafter or a boodler. I think that position only has to be stated to show its unfairness. No one in this House is making any charge, or is desirous of so doing, so far as I understand; no one outside the House is doing so. In those circumstances, can there be any doubt as to the course which this House ought to take in referring this matter to the committee?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does not the Minister of Justice regard the charge in the letter read to the House by the First Minister, as a specific charge in connection with which Mr. McGillicuddy said he had the documents and letters and photographs to prove it?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I may say that the charge is not in any way a specific Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
charge made before this House, upon the responsibility of Mr. McGillicuddy, even, leaving out of consideration altogether the fact that he is an entire outsider so far as this House is concerned. No member of this House would take the responsibility of repeating that charge. It is in fact nothing more than the general charge which I have referred to, that this man is a grafter and a boodler, and unworthy of a position in the cabinet.


Mr. E. GUSS PORTER (West Hastings).: If the House is to take the Minister of the Interior at his word, and we are bound to do so, I cannot understand why so much concern should be exercised by other hon. members of the government to prevent the inquiry which the hon. the Minister of the Interior says he is perfectly willing should take place. There is an inconsistency there which it seems to me calls for some specific answer on the part of the Minister of the Interior. If I understand the Minister of the Interior correctly, he said that he courted the fullest inquiry into any public act of his during the six years that he had occupied the position of Minister of the Interior. This charge that has been made, as I understand it, is a charge against the Minister of the Interior in his public capacity, and not a charge against him as a private individual at all. Now the Minister of Justice, in his remarks he made upon this question, stated that the Minister of the Interior was obliged to formulate a charge against himself; that the newspaper article appearing in the Toronto* World ' was the only charge before the House, and that the Minister of the Interior had a right to know what he was charged with. With those statements I beg to take most direct issue. The article, as I understand it, appearing in the ' World ' newspaper was nothing more than a repetition-in fact it did not amount quite to that-a reference to the direct charge that had been made to the right hon. the First Minister himself by Mr. McGillicuddy during the interviews he had with that gentleman. It is idle to say that the Minister of the Interior is obliged to formulate a charge upon an insinuation. There is not an insinuation contained in the article in the ' World ' newspaper. They do not insinuate that the Minister of the Interior has been guilty of any particular offence, but they make reference to the facts that had been declared before the Prime Minister himself.
If theMinister of the Interior is as anxious as he says that there should be a full investigation of the charge, if there is any charge against him, then it seems to me that he needs to go no further than the interviews which took place between Mr. McGillicuddy and the Prime Minister. There is no uncertainty about the charge.

The charge is there made. clearly and distinctly. The minister is charged with being a boodler and grafter, not a boodler and grafter in private life, but a boodler and grafter in public life in connection with these two sums appearing in his bank account, the $50,000 and the $19,300. There is a direct and specific charge and, as has already been pointed out, the Prime Minister himself considered that that was a specific and definite charge against his minister. In the interest of the country the right hon. gentleman thought it- his duty to bring it before this parliament. He did not undertake that responsibility or duty without having some evidence before him, and the gentleman who had preferred the charge to the First Minister offered to submit the proof by which he could establish the charge of grafting and boodling against his minister. When evidence is laid before any member of this House, without making any special reference to the right hon. gentleman himself, that is considered sufficient to prove a charge of boodling tad grafting against another hon. member of this House, I conceive it to be the -duty of any member before whom that evidence is laid, to take the responsibility, just as the right hon. gentleman did, of bringing the matter to the attention of the House. When the right hon. gentleman had a thorough opportunity of viewing that evidence, when the charge was made direct and when he _gaw fit, in the discharge of his duty, to bring the matter before the [DOT]House, I think the scope of this inquiry should be wide enough to cover the charge [DOT]that was made and the evidence that was 'offered to be submitted.
We have in this case a very remarkable situation. We have, on the one hand, a gentleman who interviewed the Prime Minister saying that he has evidence in his possession which he is ready and willing to submit, and which will be sufficient to "prove the Minister of the Interior guilty of the charges to which I have referred. There Is no answer to make to that charge. There is no offer in this motion to investigate that charge. The only answer that is made 'at all is the reltort by the Minister of the Interior himself, when he is called a boodler and a grafter, that the man who says that is a thug and a blackmailer. There are the two questions-a boodler and grafter on the one hand, and a thug and blackmailer on the other. It is proposed To settle this question by a reference to a Special committee appointed by this government to say whether the Minister of the Interior, in a certain transaction in 'connection with the Canadian Northern Vailway, received a certain sum of money or not. The Minister of Justice was quite *right when he used the expression that it was just a question here as to how far
the motion should be limited. The government have gone to the full extreme, in the motion offered by the Prime Minister himself, when they limit the inquiry in the way in which they do. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), has proposed that this motion be amended to such an extent as to permit of the investigation, not of any insinuation, nut of the direct charge of which proof has 'been offered. He has appealed to the right hon. gentleman himself to open it wide enough to admit that evidence, and if it is tme, and if it establishes the guilt of the Minister of the Interior, then the consequences must follow. But, if, on the other hand the evidence is not sufficient to establish that charge then the minister goes free and there will be no one in this House happier than myself, because of my personal relations with him, if the minister is acquitted of the charge which has been made against him. But, so long as the position taken by the minister himself is allowed to prevail, I cannot but think that this country, as well as this parliament, will believe that there is something in the situation that it is the desire of the government to hide and to prevent the country from fully knowing.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: This is a trouble which has arisen within the domestic ranks of the Liberal party, and up to the present time the opposition have in no way interfered with it. But the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) thought that there had been sufficient allegations against one of his ministers to justify him1 in'bringing the matter to the attention of the House. The hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) argued for a considerable length of time this afternoon for the purpose of proving: that neither the 'World' newspaper nor the 'Telegram,' published in the city of Toronto, contained any direct charge or allegation against the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver), that neither of these two papers contained any assertion which could by any manner of means be construed as a libel. If such were the case, why is it that the Prime Minister of his own action is proposing, in a resolution in this House, a committee for the purpose of investigating something against the Minister of the Interior? It appears to me at any rate that the reason he does that is because a certain gentleman of his own Liberal persuasion came to him and made certain allegations to him in private which were sufficient to justify him, apart from the newspaper allegations altogether, to bring the matter to the attention of the House. The Prime Minister having done that for the first time now asks us to consent to something. He asks us to consent to the nomination of a tribunal for the

purpose of trying the charges which were made to him by Mr. McGillicuddy. I would like to ask the Prime Minister here if he would give us the assurance now that the powers of the committee are wide and broad enough to enable it to call upon Mr. McGillicuddy to give the same evidence which he gave, or tendered, to the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister does not do that it is proof conclusive that he does not expect, and does not intend that this House shall have the same opportunity for investigating the charges which were made to him by Mr. McGillicuddy against the Minister of the Interior that he himself had. There seems to be no answer to that, as the Prime Minister does not reply. Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us? If he will give us the assurance that the committee which he is appointing now will have full power to investigate and receive the evidence of Mr. McGillicuddy as it was presented to him, or as it was tendered to him. As the Prime Minister does not answer, I see that the Prime Minister does not intend to give us any such opportunity, that he does not intend us to look at the original bank account of which we have seen a photograph, which is the most positive proof we have, although, as the Minister of the Interior himself said, he could, if he chose, allow us to go into his bank books and clear himself, but that he did not intend to do so. If he does not intend to do that he knows that the scope of this resolution is not broad enough to allow Mr. McGillicuddy, or to allow the committee, to produce the evidence which might clear up the matter. I have not had very much experience in parliamentary life, but I would think that if I had a bank book showing $20,000 and $50,000 deposits, I would certainly know where the money came from, and if a charge were made against me in a public newspaper, published in Ontario, accompanied by facsimiles of the bank book, or what are supposed to be facsimiles of the original, showing these deposits, it would be a very simple matter to show where the money came from.
Thp Minister of Justice says that the fact that the account is marked as a trust account makes it more difficult for the Minister of the Interior to tell where the money came from. There may be more truth in that assertion than we think, and perhaps if we knew the names of the beneficiaries of the trust lit would place the matter in a different light than it now presents itself in. Looking at it from the *standpoint of the Minister of the Interior, I think I am safe in saying that if this resolution passes, judging by the stand taken by the Minister of the Interior and the Prime Minister, we will not have power to investigate the bank book and there-Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
fore, we will not have power to investigate the gravamen of the charge, that two sums of money -were received and disbursed by the Minister o.f the Interior for purposes which were not in accord, with the honest discharge of the duties of a minister of the Crown. It would be a very simple matter to allow the committee to investigate whether or not the charges which were read by the Prime Minister are true, and which charges were thought to be of sufficient importance by the Prime Minister himself, to, on his own initiative, bring them to the attention of the House, especially in view of the fact that his own Minister of Justice has said that nothing which was contained in the newspaper statement constituted a libel or a reflection on the Minister of the Interior. Therefore, in bringing the matter into the House the Prime Minister must have had in mind what had been told him by Mr. McGillicuddy, when making the charge.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I nise principally to protest against the doctrine, if you call it a doctrine, laid down by the Minister of Justice. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice thinks he was expounding a principle of responsible government which people hold dear in this country, but I did notice that as soon as he delivered his oration or special plea he left the chamber apparently not caring what any one else thought about it. The Minister of Justice has practically undertaken to say that the Minister of the Interior does not know what he is talking about, and he is not satisfied with the statement made by the Minister of the Interior. I was satisfied with it to a certain extent, but I was sorry that the Minister of the Interior did not give the country the hope, by accepting the amendment of the leader of the opposition, that everything was all right with him. I think he should have persuaded his leader, that, in his own interest, the amendment of the leader of the opposition should be accepted. I am assuming at present that the Minister of the Interior is able to clear himself, but unless the inquiry has the scope which the leader of the opposition calls for, it will be impossible for the Minister of the Interior to clear himself either in the House or in the country. If the Minister of the Interior so acts that the people must infer that he is afraid of something, coming out he can only blame himself if people draw the inference that he is guilty. The Minister of Justice thinks that the position taken by the Minister of the Interior is not the safest one for him to take. I do not know whether the Minister of Justice, acting as personal counsel for the

Minister of the Interior, advised him to take the position he took to-day, hut evidently he is not quite satisfied with that position. The Minister of the Interior told *us that his only reason for declining the amendment of the leader of the opposition was that he did not propose that his private bank account should be inquired into for the satisfaction of a thug or a blackmailer. He gives the House to understand! that in his humble judgment the hank account in question was a private matter that nobody but himself was concerned in. The Minister of Justice, however, pays him the poor compliment of thinking that is not true, and he points out that on the face of it it is a trust account, and, notwithstanding that it is being advertised in the public press as evidence to show that the Minister of the Interior is a grafter and a boodler, the Minister of Justice undertakes to say that the fact that it is a trust account, and not a private account, is a reason for refusing investigation. The Minister of Justice is the legal adviser of the government, but judging by the breaks he has recently made I have not much hope that the Minister of' Justice will ever increase the moral tone or the high standing of cabinet ministers in this country. I regret that the Minister of the Interior has fallen into the unfortunate position of listening to the advice of the Minister of Justice. If the Minister of the Interior can clear himself, as he says he can, then it would have been better for him to act on his own judgment, and to have accepted the amendment of the leader of the opposition. If the Minister of the Interior insists on selecting the issue on which he should be tried, he must expect the people of Canada to think that he is more guilty than I hope he Ss, and, than at the present moment I believe he is. Knowing the Minister of the Interior as I do, I think he is making a great mistake. I do not want to lose faith in his honour or ability to conduct the affairs of this country as well as any one belonging to his political party can be expected to. I had hoped that he would place himself in a position which would lead us to believe he was innocent, but by adopting the argument of the Minister of Justice, he forces us to think, to use the words of the Minister of Justice, that he should be treated a 3 if he were on trial for a criminal offence. The Minister of Justice contends that he should have certain particulars given to him of what he is charged with, just as if the Minister of the Interior did not know all about it, before any of us on this side knew. Surely the Prime Minister told him what Mr. McGillieuddy said about him, and is not that a complete answer to the suggestion of the Minister o.f Justice, that nobody knew who was the cabinet minister alleged to be guilty. The Prime Minister knew and it was because the Prime Minister knew, that the matter came before the House at all. The Minister of Justice was disputing the statement of the Minister of the Interior and of the Prime Minister when he led us to infer that he himself does not know from the newspaper articles what minister is accused.
Nobody believes that any one is accused other than the minister whom the Prime Minister mentioned when he brought this matter up in the House. The Minister of Justice does not seriously think that any other member of the cabinet to which he belongs is accused, and it is idle for him to contend that any want of particulars exists, or that the minister accused and everybody else in this House does not know exactly what the charge is and what the investigation is required about. When the Minister of Justice undertakes to say that the Minister of the Interior should be treated as a criminal in any court is, and is entitled to particulars, if he -wants to put the matter on that basis, I would point out to him that after the minister has pleaded and said he is not guilty it is altogether too late to ask for particulars. He knows all about what he is charged with, and says he could clear it up by going into the box and giving evidence. But he prefers to stand mute and not tell, and the Minister of Justice says he is not obliged to tell because it has not been put down in black and white exactly what he is charged with. I repeat that the Minister of Justice knows, and the Prime Minister knows; and the Minister of Justice is really finding fault with the Prime Minister for bringing this matter into the House without apparently knowing what the charge was. The Minister of Justice has simply tried to find some technical excuse for preventing an inquiry in regard to the money which the Minister of the Interior is alleged to have handled. If the Minister of Justice wants to have the laws administered properly and investigations carried on in the interest of the people, he ought to have taken a position the very opposite of what he did. I cannot help comparing his stand with the stand taken by ministers of justice like Sir John Thompson in matters of this kind. The Minister of Justice is evidently bound to prevent any investigation that will prevent a recurrence of offences on the part of ministers of the Crown, preferring to leave them in a position where they will be liable to temptation to do what they should not do, because those whom the Minister of the Interior characterizes as thugs and blackmailers can say, ' we can go on and try to do all the

evil we can because we have a Minister of Justice who says thexe will not be any investigation and, therefore, we will not have to go to jail. ' That is the position. People who wish to approach ministers of the Crown with a view to corrupting them will be encouraged to do so by the doctrine of the Minister of Justice, because they know that no matter whether they succeed or fail, the Minister of Justice is going at all hazards to attempt to throttle all investigation and prevent the truth coming out. That is the position of the Minister of Justice in supporting the feeble attempt of the Prime Minister to find a reason for rejecting the amendment of the hon. leader of the opposition. The Minister of Justice knows that the Minister of the Interior is charged with having received in round figures $70,000 from some improper source for some improper purposes, and the only way to have that matter cleared up is for the Minister of the Interior to tell the whole truth about it. It does not do for the Minister of the Interior to say that because he does not want to give to the thug or the blackmailer the satisfaction of knowing where he got that money, he is not going to give the evidence, but is going to trust the majority in the House of Commons, led by the Prime Minister, with the Minister of Justice supporting him, to vote down the motion for having all the facts laid before the people, so that the people could see whether he was justified in doing what he has done or not. I regret exceedingly, as a friend of the Minister of the Interior, that he does not accept the proposition of the hon. leader of the opposition. It will be the worst thing he will ever have done as a public man if he allows this matter to go as suggested by the Minister of Justice.


Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Mr. Speaker, before the House is asked to pronounce upon the resolution before it, for an investigation limited to the article which appeared in the Toronto ' World,1 I would like to call attention to several manifest inaccuracies in that article, which show it to be so slipshod in its composition that to go through the form of solemnly investigating it would be simply farcical. I refer more particularly to the concluding paragraph as printed in the oflicial record of yesterday, where it says:
The exact date was October 3, 1907. About one year later, just before the general election of 1908, the sum of $19,000 was deposited from the Manhattan Bank in the name of Mr. 'Oliver at the Imperial Bank at Edmonton. It is known that he chequed out this money for campaign purposes.
Now, the article upon which this ' World ' despatch is based shows that in these Mr. LANCASTER
seven lines there are three glaring errors of fact. In the first place, it was not one year later, just before the general election of 1908, that the sum of $19,000 was paid; but it was two years later, and nine months after the general election of 1908. In the next place, it was not deposited from the Manhattan Bank in the name of Mr. Oliver; but, as the photograph shows, it was sent from Ottawa to the bank. In the third place, it is not known that he checked out that money for campaign purposes, because the photograph of the account shows that that money was checked out month by month during nine months of the year 1910 when there was no campaign in progress. Now', it seems to me extraordinary that in view of these inaccuracies, that that one despatch, of all the matter published in this connection, should be picked out as the matter to be investigated. It is extraordinary that this should be suggested, in view of the statement by the minister himself that he is perfectly willing to have all his official transactions placed in the limelight. We are asked to put on the limitation that the person particularly concerned, according to his statement here today, has no desire to have placed on the investigation.
I am, Mr. Speaker, particularly concerned in this connection because of a rumour which I heard in the corridors of this House yesterday. This rumour is to the effect that Mr. Dan McGillicuddy, the informant in this connection, has stated in Ottawa that this $19,000 was paid in connection with a transaction in my own riding. L presume that if he made that statement to other persons in this city, he must have made it to the Tight hon. the Prime Minister in some one of his several interviews with him. That transaction was not connected in any way with the Canadian Northern railway or swamp lands of Manitoba or lands in Saskatchewan. It has no connection whatever with anything that has been mentioned in this House. I wish that the right hon. the Prime Minister were in his seat now so that he could say whether or not this information was given him by Mr. McGillicuddy, whether or not the fact has slipped his mind, and whether, upon its being recalled to him, it makes any difference to him in the limitation which he seeks to put on this inquiry.


Frank Oliver: Might I interrupt the hon. gentleman? I do not know to what transaction he refers, but that does not make any difference. If he will be good enough later on to inform the right hon. the Prime Minister as to what particular transaction it is, I shall ask my right hon. leader to include that subject in the inquiry.


James Davis Taylor: That statement is very satisfactory to me, and I may say that it is what I would have expected from the hon. the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver). I am -very loathe indeed to have any part in this matter, and I would not have taken any part in it were it not that to be silent, after the information volunteered to me yesterday, would be apt to be misunderstood by the electors whom I represent. I would like to add, however, in consequence of the limitation which the minister has suggested to place upon the scope of the inquiry, that I would not be satisfied to judge this question on the point -as to whether or not the transaction I have indicated was one which could be justified in the public interest. The protest against it is that it was of a very harsh character, confiscating the rights of a community on behalf of a private corporation. That matter is before the courts now, and I do not wish to go into it at any length, but would simply say that I understand the defence to be that the transaction was in the end in the public interest. Now it is not sufficient for me to be told that it is in the public interest if it can be established that at the same time as this transaction occurred-and the dates are almost identical-a very large sum was paid into any fund of which the minister was made the trustee by the beneficiaries of that transaction. I think that the scope of the inquiry should be enlarged to show not only whether or not that transaction was in the public interest, but whether the beneficiaries did make a payment of this kind. I would suggest further that a minister of the Crown, in a matter of this kind, occupies another position than that of a colleague of the Prime Minister. I would suggest that he is also an adviser of the Governor General, and that His Excellency is entitled to other information than can be conveyed to him by a resolution of this House refusing this or any inquiry, and that-, in my humble judgment, it is the prerogative of a member or members of this House to directly address His Excellency in a matter affecting the honour of one of his advisers.


Frank Oliver: I have suggested to my hon. friend that he should specify to the Prime Minister the matter which he wishes to have investigated so that it might be included, in this motion.


George Eulas Foster: I -think it necessary, under the circumstances, that the Prime Minister should be here before we vote. The Finance Minister can send out for him.


James Davis Taylor: Now that the right hon. the Prime Minister has returned to his seat, I might be permitted to mention the matter which my hon. friend
the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has asked to be included in the scope of the investigation. It is this. I stated that information was given me in the corridors of this House yesterday that Mr. Daniel McGillieuddy had said that the second deposit, photographed in the reproduction of the bank account, related to a matter in my own riding. I said that this deposit was coincident with the date of a confiscation of certain property there, and the award of that property to other parties, which matter is before the courts. I said that I did not wish to go into it further than to say that I understood the defence in court by the minister to be that the transaction was in its- outcome in the public interest. I said also that this was outside the limitation which the Prime Minister wants to put upon the inquiry, whereupon my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior said he was willing that all his official acts should be brought into the lime light and judged on their merits, and is willing that this particular transaction should be included in the inquiry. I ask the right hon. gentleman whether he would also widen the scope so that this transaction should be included and be judged, not only on the point whether or not it was in the public interest, but whether it be proper that a minister of the Crown should accept under- trust-if he did, as rumour says, and I do not vouch for it-concurrently with a transaction of that kind, even though the transaction be shown to be in the public interest ; accept under trust a large sum of money from the beneficiaries by it. It was suggested to me that the Prime Minister might permit that subject to be included in the scope of the inquiry.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is a very long statement, and rather involved; I do not know that I understood it accurately, and I would understand it better if I saw it in writing. My hon. friend can make it the subject of a substantive motion of his own.


James Davis Taylor: I would remind the First Minister that I premised my statement to the House with the suggestion that the First Minister had already obtained this information from Mr. Daniel McGillieuddy, because I do not think Mr. McGillieuddy would state in one office in town what he would not state in seven interviews in the Prime Minister's office.


Wilfrid Laurier: That matter?


James Davis Taylor: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: Never heard of it until this day.


James Davis Taylor: And as to the statement in writing, of course

when we eome back at eight o'clock there will be available to the First Minister the ' Hansard ' report of what I said to the House.
House divided on amendment of Mr. Borden (Halifax).
TEAS:
Messieurs.
Ames,	Lennox,
Armstrong.	Lewis,
Arthurs,	Lortie,
Barker,	Macdonell,
Barnard,	McCall,
Blain,	McCarthy,
Blondin,	Magrath,
Borden (Halifax),	Meighen,
Bradbury,	Middlebro,
Bristol,	Monk,
Burrell,	Northrup,
Campbell,	Perley,
Chisholm (Huron),	Porter,
Clare,	Roche,
Cowan.	Russell.
Crosby,	Sehaffner,
Crocket,	Sexsmith,
Crothers,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Currie (Simcoe),	Sharpe (Ontario),
Daniel.	Smyth.
Donnelly,	Sproule,
Edwards,	Stanfield,
Elson,	Staples,
Foster,	Stewart,
Fraser,	Taylor (Leeds),
Gilbert,	Taylor (New
Goodeve,	Westminster),
Haggart (Lanark),	Thoburn,
Haceart (Winnipeg),	Thornton,
Henderson,	Wallace,
Herron,	White (Renfrew),
Jameson,	Wilcox,
Kidd.	Wilson (Lennox a
Lake,	Addington) and
Lalor,	Wright.-69.
Lancaster,	
NAYS:
Messieurs.
Allard,	McCoig,
Allen,	MoColl,
Aylesworth (Sir Allen), McCraney,	
Beauparlant,	McIntyre,
Beland.	McKenzie.
Borden	McLean (Sunbury),
(Sir Frederick),	McMillan.
Boyer,	Major,
Brodeur,	Marcile (Bagot),
Brown,	Martin (Regina),
Bureau,	Martin (Wellington)
Car veil,	Meigs,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Michaud,	
Chisholm (Inverness),	Miller,
Clarke (Essex),	Molloy,
Congdon,	Murphy,
Currie	Nesbitt,
(Prince Edward),	Neely,
Delisle,	Papineau,
Demers,	Pardee,
Devlin,	Parent,
Douglas,	Paterson,
Dubeau,	Pickup,
Emmerson,	Proulx,


James Davis Taylor: Ethier.	Prowse.
Fielding,	Pugsley,
Fisher,	Rankin.
Fortier,	Reid (Restigouche)
Fowke,	Richards,
Gauvreau,	Robb,
Geoffrion,	Ross (Middlesex),
German,	Roy Dorchester),
Gervais,	Roy (Montmagny)
Girard,	Rutan,
Gladu,	Savoie,
Gordon (Kent),	Sealey,
Graham,	Seguin,
Guthrie,	Sinclair,
Hodgins,	Smith (Middlesex)
Hunt,	Smith (Nanaimo),
King.	Smith (Stormont),
Knowles,	Sperry,
Kyte,	Temple man.
Lachance,	Todd,
Lanctot (Laprairie-	Turcotte (Nicolet),
Napierville,	Turcotte (Quebec
Lanctot (Richelieu),	County),
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turgeon,
Law,	Turriff,
LeBlanc,	Verville,
Loggie,	Warburton and
Lovell,	White (Victoria,
MacNutt,	Alta.)-102.
McAllister,
PAIRS:
Messieurs.
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Lemieux,	Doherty,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing)
Harris,	Beattie,
Talbot,	Owen,
Low,	Broder,
Schell,	Hughes,
Harty,	Osier.
McGiverin.	Reid (Grenville),
McLean (Huron),	Boyce.
Conmee.	Worthington,
Tobin,	Paquet,
Tolmie,	Marshall,
Clark (Red Deer),	Forget,
Bickerdike,	Price,
Black,	Madin,
Ecrement,	Nantel,
Macdonald,	Rhodes,
Cash.	Best.
Amendment negatived.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. HAUGHTON LENNOX (South Siim-coe).: Before you proceed further with the motion before the Chair, I wish to call attention to the matter very briefly, and I propose to end with an amendment to the motion moved by the First Minister. I listened attentively to the whole argument, and particularly to the argument advanced by the Prime Minister. Notwithstanding his great skill, I failed to find that the propositions he advanced were convincing, and it seemed To me that the Prime Minister, whether intentionally or

835Q
otherwise, was grasping at a shadow and avoiding the substance of the difficulty presented to the House. He pointed out that the article that appeared in the ' World did not at most amount to more than an insinuation. I daresay that is true. The item in the ' World * is merely a comment upon a very distinct and specific charge made in the * Telegram and whilst it may be true, as the Prime Minister says, that what appears in the ' World ' is shadowy and indefinite, there is no difficulty about the main article upon which that comment rests. What I would ask the government to' do is, not to investigate a comment, not to investigate a mere guess by a newspaper, perhaps one of many guesses made by newspapers throughout Canada, but to investigate the specific charge made against _ a minister of the Crown. This charge is made definitely m two ways. In the first place, Mr. McGillicuddy went to the Prime Minister and made a definite and clear charge against the Minister of the Interior, made a specific and grave charge against him and demanded an investigation. That matter is before the House, first, by reason of the subsequent publication of it in the ' Telegram,' and secondly, by the statement of the First Minister to the House the other day. As regards the statement of the First Minister, I submit that the whole item appearing in the ' Telegram ' was placed before the House by the First Minister, if not by actually reading the whole of it, by reference to it, and, therefore, incorporating it in what he said to the House. So we have this fact upon the statement of the Prime Minister, that a gentleman made a charge against one of his ministers of a very grave offence, and asked for an investigation. The minister in referring to that, therefore, incorporates it, and puts the House in possession of that circumstance. What the Prime Minister says that no name was disclosed in the ' Telegram,' is irrelevant. When Mr. McGillicuddy went to the Prime Minister there was nothing indefinite about who was spoken of. He charged this matter against the Minister of the Interior, mentioning him by name. The First Minister admitted he knew who was being attacked, and he said Ho Mr. McGillicuddy, I have confidence in my colleague, I will believe in his innocence, and will continue to believe in his innocence until he is proven guilty. That is the position of the matter to-day. So we have a clear and definite charge against the Minister of the Interior by a responsible newspaper in the city of Toronto, made in temperate and guarded language, clearly identified by the subsequent events as to the hon. gentleman to whom it Tefers, and setting forth in the article the photograph of the bank account, showing that a large sum of money had
been actually handled in a way that is 'not yet accounted for, and we ask that if there is an investigation, it shall not be merely an investigation into a guess by a newspaper, to wit, the 'World,' but that it shall be a bona fide, honest and complete investigation into the source of this money, to ascertain whether the source is an honest one or not.
Now we are not without experience in. this House of similar farcical investiga-. tions. In the case of the Hodgins investi-. gation, we urged the government to give us a wider scope than they were willing to give us, we urged them to do that in the interest of the public. The First Minis-. ter refused, and we had a perfectly farcical investigation as a result, and in the end we. were told that everything in regard to the Transcontinental railway was proved to be all right. We had another investigation along^ somewhat similar lines in the Lumsden charges, narrowed down in the House, narrowed down more completely in the committee, resulting in another statement by a committee of this House that everything was all right. We have the fact that, not-. withstanding these two certificates by a committee of this House, upwards of half a milion dollars of over classification, and for over-break and matters of that kind has been disclosed by the gentlemen sub-, sequent!y appointed, in part at all events, by the government. So we will go on in the same way if the First Minister pursues the same tactics, we will have this farcical investigation, and no practical result will follow. This is a little worse than anything we have had yet .in this respect. We start out with an absolutely clear propo-. sition that the government proposes to investigate something that can lead to no re-, suit whatever, investigate ia mere comment by a newspaper, while we refuse to investi-. gate what it is .important to find out, namely, the source from which this money came, what were the purposes to which it was applied, to ascertain whether it was or was . not applied to any proper purpose. We have no desire to pry into the private concerns of a minister of the Crown, but in the public interest it is necessary that this . matter should be thoroughly investigated. I, therefore, move that all the words after -' that ' be left out and the following be substituted therefor:
A Royal Commission do issue for the purpose of inquiring and reporting whether the . two sums of $50,000 and $19,350, or thereabouts, alleged to have .been deposited to the credit of the Hon. Mr. .Oliver, the .Minister of the .Interior, in a bank at Edmonton, in or about the month of October, 1907, and in the month of December, 1909, were received or obtained by the 6aid the Hon. Mr. Oliver in such manner, under such circumstances , or from such 60UTces as would render the ,

said minister's acceptance thereof prejudicial to the public) interest.


Mr. A. MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: 
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING presented a message from His Excellency the Governor General. transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1911, which on motion, were referred to Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MILLER moved that the Select Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce be granted leave to sit while the House is in session.
Mir. HENDERSON.: Does the quorum still remain at twenty-one, or has it been reduced?


Mr. MILLER.: The House has been asked to reduce the quorum, but has not consented, and the quorum remains at twenty-one. Several meetings have been called, and we have not been able to proceed with business, because of the lack of a quorum.
Breton? If so, when is the work to be commenced?
2.	Is the old canal to be abandoned? If so,
for what .reason?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the proposed new canal ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: $150,000 has been voted by parliament for this work. The details have not yet been decided on. It is estimated that the entire cost of the work will be in the vicinity of $300,000.
There appears to have been no answer given to the second part of the question as to whether the old canal is to be abandoned, and if so, for what reason? Will the minister be good enough to supplement his answer?


George Perry Graham: Whether the old canal can be enlarged or whether it would he wiser to construct a new canal is now under consideration by the department, and no decision has been arrived at as to the better method.


Robert Laird Borden: What is the difficulty about using the present canal?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. F. D. MONK.: Tenders for the construction of cruisers were to have been in yesterday and opened to-day at noon. I wish to ask: who has tendered; do the tenders cover cruisers, or cruisers and destroyers as well; what are the amounts of the tenders; what action, If any, has the government taken upon these tenders?


Wilfrid Laurier: I understand that fenders have been received and opened; they will be laid on the table of the House in due time.


PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND SUPREME COURT.
Robert Laird Borden: I wish to ask the Prime Minister if an appointment has been made to the Supreme Court bench of Prince Edward Island, and if so who has been appointed?


Wilfrid Laurier: Action has been taken, but I am not in a position to say who has been appointed. The (information will be in next Saturday's ' Gazette.'


ST. PETER'S CANAL.
Robert Laird Borden: I call the attention of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham), to a question put on the first of May by the hon. member for Colchester, and the answer g(iven by the minister (Page 8266 unrevised ' Hansard.')


Mr. STANFIELD:: 1. Is it the intention of the government to construct a new canal at St. Peter's, Cape Mr. MEIGHEN


George Perry Graham: I have been informed that if we Tepair the old canal it would be necessary to close it for a year, and that would be a serious matter.


PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTTRAVELLING EXPENSES.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: When will the Minister of Public Works bring down the return with re&rence To (the firaveflling expenses in his department?


Mr. PUGSLEY.: The return asked for the expenses of the outside service as well as the inside service, and as_ there are many hundreds of employees in the department in all sections of the country, the accountant began with the outside service, and reported that it would take several months to complete it. As the returns from the other departments only included the inside service, I thought he had better prepare the return for that service, and that will be completed in the course of a few days.,


ST. PETER'S INDIAN RESERVE.
Frank Oliver: I wish to offer an apology to my hon. friend from Selkirk. In view of the somewhat strenuous circumstances of to-day, I hope he will excuse my inability to answer his question, as I promised to yesterday. I will give him an answer to-morrow.


INTERNATIONAL JOINT CONTROL OF RATES.
William Sora Middlebro: When will the treaty or agreement be laid on the table of the House, which has been arrived at between

the United States and Canada respecting joint control of railway, express, telegraph and telephone rates? I understand such a treaty has been concluded.


George Perry Graham: No such treaty has been concluded.


William Sora Middlebro: Some time ago the minister informed the House that an agreement had been practically arrived at between the Chairman of the Canadian Railway Commission and the Chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and would be laid before the House. Has anything further been done?


George Perry Graham: The member for South Simcoe asked the same question a short time ago, and what I said was that the Chairman of the Canadian Railway Board and the Chairman of the Interstate Com-' merce Commission had met and discussed details which had been reported to the two governments. Further than that, nothing has been done.


William Sora Middlebro: It is alleged outside of the House that nothing further is being done until after the reciprocity agreement has been concluded.


George Perry Graham: That might be alleged.


William Sora Middlebro: Is there any good reason why the treaty should not be consummated now, before the reciprocity (agreement? '


Wilfrid Laurier: I suppose 1 might answer that in the opinion of my hon. friend it might lead to annexation.


William Sora Middlebro: Might I suggest that one reason why it is not brought down is that it will lead the people of this country to believe that it will tend towards annexation.


Mr. CURRIE (North Simcoe).: On this same topic, I suppose the minister will have no objection to lay that report on the table, now that he has announced to the House that such a report has been made?


George Perry Graham: Most assuredly we have an objection to laying the report on the table. It is a report made by the representatives of the two governments, and until the government takes action upon it, it would not be proper to lay it on the table.


William Sora Middlebro: I read the details of this treaty in an American magazine six weeks ago. They seem to have in the United States all the details of this treaty, as they usually do of all treaties, while we are kept in the dark.
264i



WAYS AND MEANS-RECIPROCAL TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House again go into Committee of Ways and Means.
George Taylor: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair-, I want to refer to the fact that last evening I purposed saying a few words in reference to the treaty that has been entered into between this government, and the United States government. Neither of the gentlemen who negotiated the treaty was present in the House, nor was the Prime Minister, who I presume was the chief mover in the whole arrangement.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was here.


George Taylor: These three gentlemen were absent. I objected. I thought it was the duty of all of them to be present to defend the agreement which they had made, and to give information to hon. gentlemen on this side of the House at all times while this debate was going on. I inquired of the ministers in charge of the House. There appeared to be three of them-the hon. the Minister of Public Works, the hon. Minister of Inland Revenue, and the hon. Minister of Labour; and I said I did not purpose going on until some one of the trio was present. I said this:
I think it is due when a gentleman is dic-ouesing this question -that these ministers who made this bargain should be -present. So far as I am concerned, I insist upon it. It is the right of gentlemen speaking to have these gentlemen present.
Mr. PU-GSLEY. I would be very sorry to say that to my hon. friend. I understand that my hon. friend the Minister of Finance will not be able (to be present -this evening, but I will send and find out. Perhaps my hon. friend wi-lil proceed, and I will 6end for him in the meantime.
From what the Minister of Public Works said about the Minister of Finance I understood that he was not well, and I immediately said that I would not expect him under the circumstances, but that I did expect the Minister of Customs and the Prime Minister. This morning I read in the morning ' Citizen ' that the Minister of Finance was occupying a box at the Horse Show last night. That showed the interest that he took in attending to this pact. I went on with the discussion in the absence of the Minister of Customs;' but after half an hour or so he came into the House feeling very sore about having been called out of his bed to come up here. He had gone home and gone quietly to bed, and had left this agreement to be taken care of without him, or the Minister of Finance, or the Prime Minister.


Wilfrid Laurier: I was here the whole time.


George Taylor: Then I went on and referred to the fact that on the 6th of April the hon. meniher for Grenville (Mr. Reid) had made a speech with the Speaker in the Chair, and that after having made his speech, he nlaced on ' Hansard ' some valuable statistics containing information that we could not get either from the Prime Minister, or from his diplomats who had gone to the United States to make this bargain. After the hon. member for Grenville had made his speech, the Minister of Customs said: ' I think it would be just as well to put a little appendix to the statement that will appear at length'. I stated then that it was my intention to perform a surgical operation upon that appendix, and to dissect it, and when I got through I thought the hon. Minister of Customs would regret having made the speech he did. Then I went on discussing his speech, and after a time the Chairman of the committee ruled me out of order. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to know whether I am in order, with the Speaker in the Chair, to discuss a speech made by the Minister of Customs when the Speaker was in the Chair. I was ruled out of order last night because the Chairman said I was referring to a previous debate. If that ruling was correct, I certainly have a right to discuss the speech of the Minister of Customs now, and I purpose doing so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is difficult to perform a surgical operation with the patient absent.


George Taylor: I had it about half performed when I was called to order. This is what I read from ' Hansard ' of the 6th of April:


Mr. PATERSON.: I think, perhaps, it would be just as well to put a little appendix to the statement that will appear at length. I have no objection 'to it, in fact, I am rather pleased it has gone in. I was going to ask the hon. member what hiis object is in putting this in.


Mr. BARKER.: If the hon. gentleman is pleased that they have gone in we need not waste time in discussing it.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman attaches importance to it. What I meant to point out is that he has placed on 'Hansard' these tables that have'taken a very long time to read. His object, I believe, is that this committee may come to an understanding as to the wisdom of (this arrangement that has been made.
I quoted this last night, so I will not refer to it further.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I have no objection to the hon. gentleman proceeding, but I would like some understanding to be reached. He is an old member of the House, and I would like him to remember these two


George Taylor: rules, that he cannot refer to a previous debate, and that he cannot discuss the subject of reciprocity, which is now before the Committee of Ways and Means.


George Taylor: That was the statement made with the Speaker in the Chair. It cannot be out of order in both places-with the Speaker in the Chair and in Committee of the Whole. The speech was delivered with the Speaker in the Chair and in Committee of the Whole, and a cabinet minister cannot escape being criticised in either the one case or the other.


Mr. BELAND.: Wait until next fall.


George Taylor: You do not purpose talking reciprocity until next fall, do you?


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


James Davis Taylor: I want to quote this statement taken from page 7032 of ' Hansard '. The minister said:
Oh, no. What did we do with the malt business, if you want a common sample of it? They had a duty on malt and they said that they wanted their interest guarded. What was done? We left our malt duty on just a9 it was in the tariff. The American duty was about two and a balf tames as high as ours, and we had the American government reduce their duty to our duty. So, it was with respect to other questions when they came up. We knew this, yet, these hon. gentlemen say that we do not know anything about it, that we went it blind. They have tfie information now; let us see all that would happen if these eggs and cheese and butter should be allowed in. Of eggs, 750,456 dozen came into this country. This is going to ruin, the farmers! If you multiply the dozens by twelve that gives you 9,000,000 of eggs. Thus, every man, woman and child in this country will get an egg and an eighth a year. You asked for information ! I am giving it to you and you will not believe it. We have heard about butter; 389,462 pounds of butter came into this Dominion not only from these twelve countries, but from all countries. I rediuee it into ounces and I find that 6,231,392 ounces of butter came into this country-three-quarters of an ounce of butter for every man, woman and child in this country in a year! Now that you have that information, do yen think it will help you to make up your mind whether you are in favour of this agreement or not? But there is another thing. The cheese industry is going to be ruined! 662,568 pounds of cheese coming into this country! This man Fielding went down there and had President Taft gold brick him!


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Paterson: Reduced to ounces it represents a little over 10,000,000. That is worse than the butter, because it is an ounce and a quarter for every man, woman and child in this country in a year.
Now I asked the minister for a return of what came into Canada in the month of February and he gave me the quantity.

119,728 pounds of cheese came in. Great Britain sent us 3,000 pounds; the United States, 11,000; Italy, 101,000 pounds; Germany, 113,000 pounds; Holland, 2,759 Dounds, making a total of 119,729 pounds. This came in at a duty of 3 cents per pound. What will that importation amount to when cheese is allowed in free as it will be if this agreement should be ratified? In one month 119,729 pounds came in. Multiply that by twelve and then multiply the total by sixteen, at the rate of sixteen ounces to the pound, and in place of one ounce and a quarter you will have three ounces of imported cheese for each man, woman and child in Canada. That is the statement made by the Minister of Customs.
I made the minister a proposition last night. I said that if he would back up the statement he made in this appendix which he added to the speech of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), I would make him a present of $100 for any charitable institution he would name in Brantford.


William Paterson: I will take it now, if my hon. friend


George Taylor: I am not going to be interrupted. When the hon. minister was speaking, a couple of my friends on this side very respectfully asked leave to put him some very respectable questions. My hon. friend from Algoma (Mr. Boyce) wanted to put him a question, but the minister _said.'No.'. .My hon. friend from-Quebec West (Mr. Price) asked if he might put a question and the minister said, ' No, sit down.' That was the treatment we received from him, and he is not going to interfere with me when I am performing the surgical operation on his appendix which I told him last night I would perform. The hon. minister said that he had brought down to this House a blue-book at the opening of the session giving all the information which the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) had given. I say that he cannot produce any blue-book giving the statistics and information which my hon. friend from Grenville gave. If he did produce one, I would make him a present of $100 for any charitable institution in Brantford he might name.


William Paterson: Here is the blue-book.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will turn up any page in that blue-book-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hand over the


George Taylor: If the hon. minister will turn up any page in that blue-book and read from it the exports from British India of animals, fruit, corn, hay,
meat or vegetables for the year ending March 31, then I will cheerfully give him the $100, and say that he told the truth. But if he will not, then he told an absolute falsehood to this House.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That expression is not parliamentary.


George Taylor: Then I will cheerfully withdraw it, but I will back it up with the proposition I made. If that information is in that book, the hon. minister will have $100 to give to any charitable institution he pleases.


Mr. FIELDING.: My hon. friend must not bet. It is against the law.


George Taylor: I am not betting.
I am simply challenging the minister to make his statement good.


Mr. TURRIFF.: You will not let him interrupt.


George Taylor: Perhaps I had better read the words which the minister used on that occasion. He gave these figures. In the month of February there was imported into Canada butter as follows:	From Great Britain, 2,800 pounds;
Australia, 15,000 pounds; New Zealand, 181,000 pounds; the United States, 6,000 pounds. Total, 206,472 pounds of butter imported into Canada in February, according to the figures he took from some old blue-book which he had at Washington, and he said that it amounted to three-quarters of an ounce to each man, woman and child. Then he asked how that would affect the butter market. On that butter, however, there is a duty of 3 cents per pound and now the government propose to let it in free. Multiply 206,000 pounds, the amount imported in one month, by twelve, and then multiply the result by sixteen ounces and you get nine ounces for each man, woman and child in Canada, yet the minister said that only three-quarters of an ounce came in for every man, woman and child. That statement is not correct.
Then take eggs. He worked out eggs and said it would give an egg and an eighth to each man, woman and child in Canada. Why in February alone there came into Canada from the United States 719,000 dozens of eggs which paid a duty of 3 cents a dozen. From all countries in that month there came 735,000 dozen eggs and if you multiply that by 12 to get the figure for the year and by 12 to give the number of eggs to the dozen, you get 13i eggs to each man, woman and child, yet the minister says we only imported 1-4. How does that accord with the minister's statement? Here are his words :-


William Paterson: Reduced to ounces it represents a little over 10,000,000. That is

worse than the butter, because it is an ounce and a quarter for every man, woman and child in this country in a year.


Mr. PRICE.: How many pounds are coming in when the reciprocity agreement' goes through ?


William Paterson: That is what you will have to make up now with the information you are getting. We got this out of the same blue-books that the hon. gentleman had all the time.
Is that correct? Let me ask the Minister of Customs. He had not the information in the blue-lbooks. Then the debate continued :


Mr. REID (Grenville).: Give us biscuits too.


William Paterson: I agree with what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Price), said, when he candidly admitted that as a lumberman this arrangement was in his favour but he was not sent here to represent his own interests. He took the right view of it. No gentleman ever hears me discussing my own business. I do not think it is very good taste to do so.


Mr. HUGHES.: Do they not taste well?


William Paterson: Sometimes some hon. gentlemen want to give the impression that, somehow or other, from my being in the ministry and having something to do with framing the tariff, the duty on that article was by that means raised higher than it was under the previous government. Well now, I am not saying anything about it and I do not want to say anything about it, but if hon-gentlemen entertain that idea they are entertaining an absolutely fallacious one, an untrue one, because the fact is that the duty on that article has been reduced.
It is pretty high yet, it is not on the free list under this agreement.


William Paterson: It is not as high as on carriages. .


George Taylor: I will come to carriages, (reading).
It was reduced when we inaugurated our own policy and it is further reduced and largely reduced under this agreement. But, I do not want to talk of my own business. I do not know that it is right. I heard my hon. friend from Yale-Cariboo (Mr. Burrell), and while I sympathize with him if he thinks he is hurt I think it would be better taste for a man to leave the advocacy of business in his own interest to some one who is not connected with it. Therefore you never hear me talk about my own business at all. I find myself maligned. I find statements made in a public manner that give that idea to the people; in fact, it has been absolutely stated in the public prints and I have not taken the trouble to deny it. If it is any fun to hon. gentlemen opposite, if it is a mark of superior wit and wisdom that was manifested by the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) -I do not think it elevated his position in the House to undertake to picture me sitting on a biscuit box or something-but if it amuses hon. gentlemen opposite, I am sure that I do not begrudge them the merriment it gives them. I do not think I have said as much Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).
as this in my life. Of course, I am not connected and I have not been connected in any active way with any business since I took office under my leader,


Samuel Hughes: Just a sleeping partner. Mr. PATERSON. I have a little money invested. It has to be invested in something, but as to drawing salary or getting any remuneration, I have never done that. If that company is fortunate enough to have any dividends I hope to share in them the same as you gentlemen do. I do not suppose that you wish me to take what little money I have and wrap it up in a handkerchief.
The bon. gentleman says he has no interest in these biscuits. It is a limited liability Company, he has stock in it. He is not a salaried officer but he may be a director; he has money invested there and it depends on how much that business makes, what the dividend will amount to and if the duty is not kept up he will not draw much dividend. He is a stockholder in a limited lialbility company as he has a perfect right to be but I ask if the passages I have quoted from his speech would indicate that he is a man qualified to go over to the United States to negotiate a reciprocity agreement with the cleverest men in the United States. I am quoting this because he said he was adding it as an appendix to the address of the hon. member for Grenville, so that his oonstitutents and the constituents of all hon. gentlemen opposite might read the speech of a statesman, appended to the speech of the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid). Therefore I quote from it because T purpose having it published and sent to each of my hon. friend's constituents because I know he would not send, it, he would be ashamed of the speech he made that night, ashamed to send it to his constituents as the speech of a statesman.
The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) continued:
I make this statement in the presence of gentlemen. I shall find oUt whether they are gentlemen or not, I shall find out which of them makes ,a suggestion of this kind which carries with it the inference that Paterson is in there in his own interest. I agree with the hon. member for Quebec (Mr. Price), that no man should come here to forward hiis own interests. He is sent here to exercise his hest judgment in the interest of the country. I have told you simply how we conducted these proceedings in Washington and how we arrived at our conclusion. When we were at Washington we knew that last year there were 662,668 pounds of cheese imported into Canada, but iwe knew we exported 180,000,000 pounds,

Where tc? Not to the United States hut to the English market.

and we took it for -granted that in view of this we could bold our own in cheese with the United States. As to potatoes, it is true
C

that while 513,735 bushels were imported last year from all sources, we exported 1,923,595 bushels.
Not to the United States. The hon. gentleman would lead the House to believe that we had exported them to the United States.
We exported 780,000 bushels to the United States, which is 150,000 bushels more than we imported. The Finance Minister told you that he did not think it necessary to have Statistics on alii these things, but we knew about the exports and imports of lumber just as bon. gentlemen apposite could know if they took the trouble to open the blue-books. The hon. gentleman who interrupted me so often knows something about the business, and we knew it too. We knew there was a duty of $1.25 on lumber going into the United States, and we believed from the information we had that it would be a good thing for the lumber interests of this country if without putting a duty on lumber here we could gelt the Americans to take their duty off lumber, and so far as I am concerned I made up my mind that if we got the Americans to do that, I would agree to it, statistics or no statistics.


William Price: Did the hon. gentleman ever consider that the new Congress might possibly make lumber free?


William Pugsley: What difference does that make?


William Price: It makes all the difference in the world to the lumberman.


William Paterson: If the Democrats should make lumber free, and this agreement goes through

The deputy Speaker then ruled the ' Minister of Customs out of order, but although he was ruled cut of order he went on a little further dealing with the same question. I shall not go further because with what I put on 'Hansard' last night and this addition to-day, I feel that T have said sufficient.


Hon.   W@: I thought last night that perhaps the complaint was that I was out of order when I was making these remarks. The question arises whether as the hon. gentleman has spoken to-night and brought this matter up I am entitled to reply.
I did not want to be out of order, but I would like to make one or two remarks.
_ Mr. SPEAKER. I understand, the minister has a perfect right to speak on this point,


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman has thought fit to make some remarks that were offensive. There is no evidence of talent in any one making offensive remarks, therefore, I will not notice them. I want to set him right on one point, so that, if he is going to spread his speech broadcast, it will not look quite so silly when people read it. He quoted some calculations that I had made. I may be
wrong on those calculations, if I am, let any one show that I am wrong, and I will admit it at once. He says I brought down a report which shows that in one month a certain amount of cheese was brought into Canada, and he says if you multiply that amount of cheese by 12 months in the year, you will have a much larger quantity than the minister stated. Well, it would occur to the merest child to ask whether the same amount of cheese, came in in each of the other 11 months. I was quoting from the blue-books, I was quoting from the trade and navigation returns, from the documents we have, giving the returns by the year, and not by the month. In those yearly returns the figures the hon. gentleman mentioned are included.


George Taylor: No, the returns I gave are for February, 1911, and the year he gave'was the year ending March 31, 1910.


William Paterson: I stand corrected in that, then. But what I was quoting from was the full year's returns, ending 31st March, 1910. Therefore, I was taking a year's returns. The hon. gentleman has not given us the. year's imports, he has taken only one month, and then he multiplies it by 12. But supposing none came in, or scarcely any, during the other II months, that shows nothing. He must challenge my figures, which every one will admit are the proper basis to take for an argd-ment, and show how much of these goods came into the country during the whole year. I took the last completed year, and if any one will make the calculation and show that I made a mistake, I will stand corrected. I took the returns from the books we had with us in Washington, I *made my calculations on these, and I stand by those calculations until some one can prove they are wrong. Every hon. gentleman has the trade and navigation returns for the complete year in his desk, and, therefore, he has the figures. I think you will find that my calculations of the total importations during the whole year would amount to an ounce and a quarter for every man, woman and child in the country. I do not want to follow the hon. gentleman in anything approaching insolence or effrontery. I think it is quite out of taste for him to call in a minister to listen to personal abuse. I have to say here again what I said once before, that I endeavour always to treat every member with the utmost courtesy. But I do not want it to be forgotten that, though I am a minister, I am also a member of parliament, and I have the same right to courtesy that every other member has and no more. But the simple fact that I occupy a seat in the ministry is no justification for any hon. gentleman in this House to think he is at liberty to address to me language that he

would no*t apply to others. Last night 1 was sent for, and came into the House to listen to him. It is not evidence of very good taste to summon a person from his needed rest to come in here and listen to personal abuse, to be told that he has made statements that are false in their nature, to hear allusions to his business. It is true that I am engaged in a small business, and if any hon. gentleman can point out anything disreputable in connection with it, he is at liberty to do so. But I want to remind the hon. gentleman that in making a remark of that kind, while I may happen to have some money invested in a certain business, it is a very small amount in comparison with what is invested in that business _ by other men scattered through the Dominion. Therefore, when he endeavours to make out that there is something wrong and disreputable in that business, he is doing an injury, not to me personally, but to men who hold millions of capital invested in this industry.


George Taylor: I hope the minister is not trying to misrepresent me in insinuating that I said anything implying disrepute in his business. I was simply answering an argument that he himself placed on the ' Hansard ' in reference to that business, and he will not find a word in the ' Hansard ' that I uttered against his business.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman, though, was bold enough to insinuate that I had done something to further my own interest.


George Taylor: In what way?


William Paterson: That I had taken care to keep the duty up to a good high figure.


George Taylor: That is nothing against the business.


Mr. MACDONALD.: Are you in favour of protection to the business?


George Taylor: Of course I am


Mr. BEST.: May I ask the minister a question? Why is it that you expect the farmers to produce wheat without duty, and as soon as it is turned over to the man that makes flour and biscuits out of it you give him a high protection?


William Paterson: My answer is, because I am trying to give effect to the wishes of the farmers. But I rose simply to show the hon. gentleman the position he is in. He disputes my calculations based on a year's returns which were given as a year's returns, and he presents a Teturn for only one month, and says if you multiply that by 12 the result is so and so. My figures are there, on which I made a comparison. The hon. gentleman has not attempted to Hr. PATERSON.
meet that. He has attempted to contradict that by taking the imports for one month, neglecting all the other months, and he says he will send that broadcast and that he will send it to my own constituency. For his own sake I would" ask him not to do that, because they will look at the returns for themselves and see exactly what I am pointing out to the House. They will see that the hon. gentleman talks about one month in that speech, but takes no note of what came in during the other months. I have no objection, whatever, to any one disputing my figures. If they can show that I am wrong, I am very glad to be corrected, because we do not want to have figures placed before the House that will not bear investigation. But that can be no reason for personal abuse, for attempting to use language that would not be attempted to be used between one gentleman and another, and, as I say, I do not feel particularly pleased that the hon. gentleman should think that he occupies a position in this House which would lead him to send for the Prime Minister and to disturb me from my needed rest in order to come up here to listen to him, not disputing any arguments that I have made, but engaging in a tirade of abuse. That I do object to, and I think it is going beyond the limit. These hon. gentlemen, when they try to injure the business I am in, may do harm but I would tell them that there are millions of capital invested where I have very little, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Taylor, Leeds), seeks to create a prejudice against that business he is not hurting me very much, but he will be hurting men all over the Dominion. I see in a paper-true he did not say it- an article in which it was stated that the article of talc had been overlooked, that it was an article that was used in an hon. gentleman's business in order to reduce the cost and cheapen the quality of confectionery-the line I am engaged in. There are millions of capital invested in Canada and in like manufactured goods, and a statement of this kind must have a deteriorating and damaging effect upon the trade, not upon my trade, but on'the trade of the men throughout the country who manufacture these goods. I know of no such article being used in the business of any man who is engaged in the trade, but to scatter that statement broadcast over the country, I am sure, must tend to lessen the quantity of the goods that must be sold for people are sensitive, and properly so, with regard to the question of pure foods. Yet, that statement is made to the detriment of millions of capital and of the interest of men who are engaged in this business, strong Conservatives as well as Liberals, without, in so far as I

am aware, the slightest shadow of foundation that any such thing takes place.


Mr. BLAIN.: May I ask the hon. gentleman if that statement was made in this House?


William Paterson: No, I say it was made in a newspaper and it was copied into another, I have been told. I am glad that it appeared originally only in one newspaper. But, I am only pointing out the venpmous attacks of this kind that are made upon me, and that it is an unfortunate thing for the line of business that I am connected with, because it is doing injury to others engaged in that business. I would ask my hon. friend from London (Mr. Beattie), if he believes there is any such custom as that, and if he believes that such a statement as that made in a newspaper can for one moment be believed? Yet, people may believe it. I, therefore, have made these remarks, not in my own interest so much, because my interest in business is only very slight in comparison with the millions of capital that are invested, but it is an unfair, it is unjust to the community and unjust to the men engaged in this line of business.
I need not say any more. I just rose to put my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor, Leeds), right, and to let the House know that the figures which I gave were based upon calculations that are in the trade and navigation returns, which returns are in the hon. gentleman's possession. I took the number of roounds of butter that were imported during the whole year, I brought them into ounces, I estimated the population at 8,000,000 and I said that if those figures were correct that represented an ounce and a quarter of butter for every man, woman and child in the Dominion, and I pointed out that that amount could not influence the butter market very much. I did the same with cheese and with eggs. The hon. member for Leeds says a certain quantity of butter came into Canada in one month, and then on the supposition, without any foundation for it, that a like quantity had come in during the otheT eleven months says the figures I gave were incorrect. Hon. gentlemen can check the figures I gave, they have the trade and navigation returns in their possession and, as I said before, if they will check them, and show that I am wrong I will admit that I made a mistake most cheerfully. But, while they stand uncontradicted, for an hon. gentleman to get up and make a calculation without any foundation whatever, to mention that I have uttered ia falsehood in the House, an accusation subsequently retracted, and to apply language equally offensive, is to transgress the bounds lof that common
civility that ought to prevail in this House between one member and another.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Medical men sometimes find that a patient, after a surgical operation, and especially after an anesthetic has been administered, are rather incoherent in their talk. We have an example of that, to-night which is not unusual in the experience of those who belong to the profession to which I happen to belong. The hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson), has apparently diverted attention to what he was pleased to call a gross abuse of a minister. I do not think that any minister ought to be abused any more than any other member of the House, but I think he did that more for the purpose of drawing attention away from the gravamen of the charge than for any good purpose. What was the gravamen of the charge? It, was that the House was desiring to get correct information instead of information that was neither correct nor reliable. Examples were given last night by my hon. friend from Leeds (Mr. Taylor), and repeated to-night. The Minister of Customs deals with the calculation that my hon. friend from Leeds made. He made a calculation showing what would be most likely to happen if the duty were taken off certain articles of food.


Air. DEVLIN.: I would like to know what the question is before the Chair, and what the hon. gentleman is speaking joiu__________________


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The question before the Chair, is for the House to go into Committee on Ways and Means. I understand that perfectly well, and if the hon. gentleman was in the House he ought to understand it also.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I assume that the Minister of Customs was allowed to speak simply in answer to the hon. member for Leeds.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Air. Speaker, I have the floor, and the hon. gentleman has no right to interrupt me.	What
I say is that we are not given the information we ask for. We charge that the House is misled by the incorrect, unreliable information which is given, and therefore arguments based upon such information must naturally be misleading and unsuitable to the House. Let me give an example of that. I have in my hand a return brought down to the order of the House dated the 3rd March, 1911, showing the quantity and value of butter, eggs, poultry, chilled or frozen meat, bacon, lard, apples, vegetables, wheat, barley, cattle, horses and potatoes imported into Canada during the six months ending March 1, 1911. I have read that re-

turn with a great deal of care, and there is no mention in it of the importation of butter. What do the trade and navigation returns show? They show that in the month of October, 1910, there were imported of butter from Great Britain 201, pounds, and from the United States 5,496 pounds, although nothing at all is given in this return. Then, for the month of November, 1910, we find, according to the trade and navigation returns, that we imported from Italy 213 pounds, from the United States 3,917 pounds; for December, from Australia 72,800 pounds, New Zealand 10,000 pounds, United States 5,000 pounds; for January, 1911, Great Britain, 10,000 pounds, Australia 101,920 pounds, New Zealand 115,000 pounds, Asiatic Turkey 142 pounds, United States 2,132 pounds and yet, in that return, there is not a pound mentioned. Is that not misleading the House? Have we not a right to complain of that? I think we have. We do complain that the information we get is not reliable, and that ministers found arguments upon incorrect information. There is another complaint made. The minister said that we have all the information in the trade, and navigation returns, yet the hon. member for Leeds refers to importations from other countries of articles that are not mentioned at all in this return. He gives the exports of other countries that are not in this return, and are not in the trade and navigation returns, and yet the Minister of Customs says that you have all the information in the trade and navigation returns if you will only take the trouble to look it up. That could not be so because they do not make these returns. Then, why make the statement?


William Paterson: I did not make the statement.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister did make the statement in my presence that every member of this House had every item of this information before him, and yet there is no return before this House that contains that information. That is improper, and the minister is not treating this House with the courtesy to which it is entitled; nor, has he answered the argument advanced on this side of the House by saying something that has no basis in fact. These are the things that we complain of. and these are the things that the country is complaining of.


William Sora Middlebro: I was here the other evening when the discussion arose between the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) and I think that prett.v nearly the whole question was this:	After the hon.
member for Grenville (Mr. Reid) had placed his statement on record showing the Mr. SPROULE
exports of products such as are covered by the reciprocity agreement from all of these thirteen countries, and from the British colonies, the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) got up and, with the trade and navigation returns in his hand, said that all the information which the hon. member for Grenville had just placed on ' Hansard ' was contained in the blue-book which he slapped on his desk. As a matter of fact that is not so, and the Minister of Customs knows, or should know, that this blue-book of which he spoke does not contain the information which the hon. member for Grenville put on record because it does not give all the imports and exports of foreign countries of articles covered by this reciprocity agreement such as we should have in order to know whether these countries can send their products in to compete with our Canadian farmers. I think the Minister of Customs does not desire this debate to proceed upon information that cannot be relied upon.


William Paterson: The hon member for Grenville said that the facts and figures he was quoting were not in the blue-book, and I said, no, but that the imports and exports of articles that concern our country were there. I would not be positive but I think that if you look at 'Hansard' you will find that the hon. member for Grenville said that with reference to certain figures which he quoted, and which are not in the blue-book. I think that you will find that I said they were not there.


William Sora Middlebro: The minister will know what we were contending for; we wanted to know the total exports of these countries to see whether or not they could possibly compete with the farmers in this country. The minister held up the blue-book, and said that all these figures in the report that my hon. friend from Grenville was putting on ' Hansard ' were in the blue-book, we said they were not, and that is the reason why we put them on record.


William Paterson: As I remember I stated that certain articles which he was giving, having reference to what the hon. gentleman is alluding to, now, were not there, but that all that portion of the information which it was necessary for Canada to have with reference to imports and exports was contained in the blue-book.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: The minister was very unfair in selecting the year he did. If you look over the imports of butter from the United States for the last ten years you will find that in 1910 there was only one-tenth of the amount imported from that country that was imported in the year 1909. Now, the minister selects that one year, and he hands it out to the farmers of this country so as to make the quantity of but-

ter the United States have been selling in Canada look small. In 1910 we imported a little over $18,000 worth of butter from the United States, but in 1909 we imported $156,143 worth. T.he Minister of Customs selected that lean year, and the reason such a small quantity was imported to Canada that year was that butter had been cornered in the United States, and the price had been run up. They held it in cold storage, and did not export it to Canada or anywhere else. But at the present time butter is cheaper in the United States than it is in Canada. Last year the butter was cornered and put in cold storage, and the people in the United States bought oleomargarine in its place. I was in New York state ten days ago, and a big butter dealer told me that last year he sold fifty 'tubs of butter in a week, but this year he was selling twelve tubs of butter and a hundred tubs of oleomargarine. The corner in butter raised the price so that the public had to buy oleomargarine, and when they were forced to put the butter on the market the bottom had fallen out of the demand for it. A friend of mine in Watertown, a Canadian, who conducts a big grocery business, told me that he had farmers' butter, creamery butter, and oleomargarine and that while eighteen months ago he was selling a much larger percentage of butter than of oleomargarine his invoices showed that at the present time he was selling 18 pounds of oleomargarine to one of butter. If the Minister of Customs had quoted the imports of butter in 1909 instead of 1910 he would have found a great difference. It was unfair for the Minister of Customs to hand out that statement to the farmers of the country because it was calculated to deceive them.


William Paterson: I do not doubt what the hon. gentleman says about the imports in the previous year, and I dare say that year after year the importation of butter will vary. The reason I took the particular year I did was that I just happened to have the figures for it in my desk. I certainly did not select it intentionally. However, take any year you like and you will find there is not sufficient imported to affect this market.


George Taylor: If the duty is removed it would.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.

['Bills and orders; there is quite a number of them.']
Mr. C. A. MAGRATH (Medicine Hat).: Mr. Chairman, this reciprocity pact recently entered into by two representatives of the Canadian government with representatives of the government of the United States, and now before us for .consideration, is in my judgment the most important question that has ever come before this or any other parliament of Canada. Last year I was disposed to regard the navy question as such, but the question now before us I think predominates in importance. True, the navy question was settled, but not in the best interests of our race. If Canada is going to be one-twentieth as great as some gentlemen are pleased to think, then we are on the liigh road to meet great and grave issues. Last year we plunged into the navy question, and now we find ourselves imbedded in this national issue at the instance of but two gentlemen in this whole Dominion, and, the result of this arrangement if carried into effect will be that the home market, the best market, the market which takes about eighty per cent of our farm products will be thrown open to practically the whole agricultural world. These two representatives of our government entered into this bargain, a bargain which for example gives the Argentine Republic, exporting as much wheat as practically the United States and Canada combined, free entry into the market of Canada. It would interest me very much to know what it costs to produce a bushel of wheat in the Argentine Republic. We have heard it said that labour there is worth about 64 cents per day, and we know it is worth probably three times that in this country. The position we find ourselves in is that, so far as any information which the government is able to submit to us, we are practically in the dark; we are unable to say what the nature of the competition we are throwing our own farmers against in their own home market. We have heard a great deal recently of statistics, and I was much interested some time ago to hear the hon. member for North Wellington state that if there is any one thing which the Canadian government can learn from the United States government it is their system of collecting statistics. Before the President of the United States entered into this pact, he went about it in an intelligent way. He sent representatives of his government throughout the United States and throughout Canada I am told, and obtained data as to the conditions existing in both countries from the view point of the United States, and with that data before him he entered into these negotiations. And, in placing this pact before the representatives of the people' of the United States the President submitted to the Congress three or four messages containing from 100 to 150 pages of printed matter, giving detailed information as to the conditions prevailing in both countries and of course from the point of view of the United States. That was an intelli-

where she is to-day? I want to see great industrial centres grow up in our west. I would like to have those engaged .in manufacturing to-day in this country expand their energies and establish industries throughout our west and not confine their efforts to any one portion of this country. Industry in the west means labour, labour means population and population means a home market-the very best market we can have. If we had in our west centres such as Minneapolis, Omaha, Chicago and St. Pail, the prices of our farm products there would be much more stable than they can possibly be under existing conditions.
Turning again to the farmers delegation I find on page 38 of their report that they ask in connection with reciprocity:
That in the event of a favourable arrangement being reached, it be carried into effect through the independent action of the respective governments rather than hy the hard and fast requirements of a treaty.
It would be interesting to know what was in the mind of the gentlemen who penned that paragraph. If reciprocity of the character we now have before us is in the best interests of the people, why should it not be hard and fast? But if 'there be any question as to its not being in the best interests of all the people we should be prepared to go slowly. What right have we to experiment in trade matters when in this intelligent age, we can by investigation conducted in a scientific manner work out results with fair accuracy. No such method was followed by this government. Reference has already been made to _ the fact that we have no statistics to guide us. Our government did not follow the example set by President Taft who, when he saw he was going to be engaged in negotiations -for reciprocity with this country, got busy and had information collected from both countries. If our government had done the same, this pact would not be before us in its present condition. We would not have had a vast number of our fruit farmers here, shortly after the pact was announced, protesting against the manner in which the fruit and vegetable farming industry were being destroyed to a certain extent in this country. My hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) is not here, but I do not think he will challenge the statement I am about to make. He was in the constituency of Medicine Hat, a few days ago. He, there addressed an important gathering of citizens in my home city, Lethbridge. He told them, according to the press reports, that there was substantially nothing in the claim of the fruit farmers that their industry was in any way being injured. But practically at the same time as the hon gentleman was making that address in Lethbridge, we had the hon. member for Mr. MAGRATH
Wentworth (Mr. Sealey) presenting an amendment to this committee against the pact that is now before us. My hon. friend from Wentworth is a strong supporter of the government and he would not have taken the action he did unless he believed it was absolutely necessary. What I want to point out is that not only he but every page boy in this House knew that that pact has to go through in its present form and that consequently if his amendment carried it would destroy the pact. What then was his object in doing what he did? He has fruit and vegetable farmers in his constituency but all our fruit and vegetable farmers are not hived in that constituency. He knew that that pact was going to injure that industry both in his own constituency and in a number of other constituencies throughout the country.
I believe, howqver, that the author of the paragraph referred to had something entirely different in his mind. I believe he suggested independent action so that Canada, the small country, would keep herself clear of any entanglements whereby her large and influential neighbour could not at a later date dominate here in trade matters. In my opinion, the present pact is the most dangerous one that this young country could engage in. It is not of a character that will permit Canada to be absolutely independent as suggested by the farmers' delegation. The pact has a flavour of divorce court proceedings, which, at least in this country, are not agreeable. We are told it may be broken at a moment's notice. While it is true we may change our tariff, it does not destroy the pact so long as the United States continue to keep faith in whole or in part. Can we not then see the position it may land us in? It has been truly said that Canada is placing a noose around her neck by entering this pact, and the string to tighten that noose will not be in our hands. It will be in the hands of our neighbours. On the other hand, a firm treaty for a definite period of time, would, at the end of that period, leave us in exactly the same position as when we entered that pact, namely in absolute control of our own tariff to do our own business for our own people in our own way. Let me suggest a difficulty that we might find ourselves in under this pact. While the proposals resulting in this arrangement emanated from the President of the United States, still the correspondence embodying the terms of the pact was negotiated by the two representatives of our government. In that correspondence there was a direct invitation to the United States to drop her tariff wall, to let, for instance, our wheat free into that country. Now we know that cannot be accomplished without transporation lines; we know that Canadian railways are not going to build down to the

boundary and hand over our product to their rivals, the American railways. Then Sir, it means this, if it means anything, that it is a direct invitation to the American railways to come into our country for the product of our farmers. I do not object to that so long as they come in as other foreign capital is coming in at this moment, not under any pact or arrangement between our government, and the government of the country from which that capital comes. I do not wish to put a board fence around this country, but I want to see us keep absolute control of our own affairs. If our western farmers expect to get our grain into the American markets, it appears to me that the American railways must accept the invitation of our country, and build those roads into our country. Nothing can be accomplished by a few trunk lines, because the farmers cannot afford to haul grain more than six or eight miles of railways. Therefore, if it means anything, it means that our western country must be grid-ironed by American railways. I do not, I repeat, object to that; in fact I will be glad to see them come into the country. Then suppose that we break this pact 24 hours after we enter into it, and our neighbours should continue to keep it. Suppose the American railways should grid-iron our country. Suppose that 10 or 15 years hence our government should do something along our boundary that they thought to be in the interests 'of our people, is it not possible that these American railways would say they had created vested interests in this country? Is it not possible they would say:	You invited us to come into your
country, we are taking your wheat out, we are taking your timber out, we are taking your fish out, and we have developed a north-bound traffic as well, for we cannot operate with profit without traffic both ways. They would add we developed that north-bound traffic under conditions that prevailed during the time our government had been keeping faith with yours. Then might we not find them saying to us: You have broken faith, you are injuring vested interests. We would say : Nay, they would say: Yea, and probably that yea would be repeated at Washington with the statement that our proposed Act was that of an unfriendly people, which, in diplomatic language, is not agreeable.
While on the subject of railways let me digress to say that I consider railways to be the crying need of our western country. I have constituents who live 50 miles from a railway. I know that they want railways a great deal more than they want any reciprocity of the character before us, and I am prepared to go back to them on that issue. I say that the government has failed to realize the situation in that country. Corporations are building railways
through that country, and spending an immense amount of money, but they are going where they please, and how they please; they are jockeying each other for advantage in certain territory. They should, in my opinion, be pulled apart and the government should insist on their spreading their energies over the entire country. If our government had been paying some attention to that feature, the farmers of the west would appreciate that to a much greater extent than this pact now under consideration.
Possibly some one may say that I am playing with shadows when I suggest the foregoing possible entanglement with our neighbours. Can we not learn something from the past? We had a pact in existence in 1854 which was abrogated in 1865, and one of the reasons given by our neighbours for abrogating it was that we had the hardihood to change our tariff in respect to some articles not covered by the treaty. They took the position that because they had entered into a treaty with us, because certain tariff conditions existed at that time, we were not at liberty to change our position in that regard. It seems to me that was travelling a long way to find a reason for abrogating that treaty. I can refer to a case in the past few years. In June, 1902, Congress passed an Act inviting Canada, through Great Britain, to take part in an investigation of international waters. When the Joint International Waterways Commission was completed under that Act by the appointing of three Canadians and three Americans, one of the first questions referred to that commission by our government was a dispute on the St. John river as between interests in Maine and New Brunswick. The dispute had reached an acute stage. What happened? The Canadian section referred it to the American section which in turn consulted its government at Washington, and they were instructed that they were to have nothing to do with the St. John river dispute. The instructions which the American section received from the government at Washington were in the following words:
The broader interpretation given to the Act by Canadian authorities should be rejected if for no other reason than on account of the smallness of the appropriation for the support of the American section.
In other words our interpretation of ordinary plain English, was to be governed by the amount of money our neighbours saw fit to vote for the use of their section. It appears to me that is an extraordinary position to take. Our government persisted, the matter was placed before the British Ambassador at Washington, who was instructed to take it up with the govern-

ment of that country, but without success, because his office telegraphed to Ottawa the following:
This government regret they cannot agree with your commission in dealing with the St. John river.
That answer was certainly to the point, it was direct, and what happened? Simply this, that our government had to hack down. I am not criticising them for that, because there was no other course open to them. That was done by the right horn, gentleman on the 5th of June, 1905, when he addressed the Canadian section in the following language:
With reference to the opposition raised by the American commission to consider other waters than the waters of the lakes and rivers whose natural outlet is by the River St. Lawrence to the Atlantic ocean, it would be no use to persist in our contention, and the government, therefore, are of the opinion that the commission had better even proceed in this limited way.
Well, it appears to me, that the foregoing is a sufficient evidence that our neighbours will dominate us when it suits their purpose. If we believe one tithe of what we say about the great virgin wealth of this country, if we have confidence in ourselves, then we must know that we have a country loaded with raw material, with water routes equal to the best in the world, with an excellent strategical position in the world of commerce. We will, provided we keep ourselves clear of trade entanglements, be the serious rival of even the most successful and the most prosperous countries of the present time. A more fruitful source for trouble between Canada and her immense neighbour could not be found, than in trade arrangements, especially when that trade is to be the source of the only rivalry that can possibly exist between us.
Now, I would like to consider briefly the economic side of this question. The farmers asked for, amongst other things, reciprocity in farm products as well as in agricultural implements. They are only getting reciprocity, of a character, in agricultural products. We are giving our home market to our neighbours, as well as, practically, to the entire agricultural world. The United States is not attempting to do anything of the kind, and the reduction in agricultural implements is of little or no account. Why does the United States want our farm products? Not to give us better prices than we have been getting. They want our farm products to_ assist in lowering the prices of such products to the consumers in the United States. *Canada exports about 60,000,000 bushels of wheat, while our neighours last year, I think, exported about 151,000,000 bushels.'
Mr. MAGRATH
Supposing for the purpose of argument that Canada exported her 60,000,000 bushels to the United States, then our neighbours would have their own 151,000.000 bushels, plus our 60,000,000, or 211,000,000 bushels which they would have for export to Liverpool. The heavier the stock the United States carries for export purposes, the! lower it will force the price of the product in their home market. So there must be ia sagging in prices in the United States, governed by the amount of wheat they import from us. But every bushel they import from us displaces a bushel in that country, which has to be shipped out of New York, because they produce much more than they consume. Therefore, their railways and their flour mills will get the benefit of what they import from us, and it will do the double duty of helping to steady or lower prices in their market, as well as to create labour for their railways and their flour mills. Here is what President Taft had to say at Springfield, Illinois, on February 11 last:
To let the wheat of the northwest come down to Minneapolis and Chicago will steady the pnioe of wheat. But that it will in the end substantially reduce the .price of wheat fixed for the world in Liverpool, no one famci-lar with conditions will assert.
It will give to the United States much greater control of the wheat market than it has ever had before. It will enable its milling plants to turn Canadian wheat into flour and send abroad the finished product and will stimulate the sale of manufactures and other things that we have to sell in Canada.
Now, Sir, I do not know that we are particularly interested in the United States obtaining control of the wheat market; I do not know that we are particularly interested in the creation of labour for Minneapolis in turning Canadian wheat into flour. We have some people in this country, irrespective of politics, who are strongly of the opinion that Canada is to be the greatest wheat producing country in the world. If there is anything in that statement it appears to me that we might be somewhat ambitious to control the wheat market in this country for our farmer, instead of allowing him to become the agent through which the wheat trust in the United States will take advantage of his product in order to obtain greater control over the wheat products of the farmers in his own country. Some people claim that the United States is rapidly reaching the point when she cannot produce enough to feed her own people. There is absolutely nothing in that. We know that the density of population in that country is about 25 to the square mile, and we know that there are countries in Europe with almost ten times that density of population, producing enough to feed

their own people. The United States produce enough to feed her own people and some 17,000,000 over and above her own population; in other words, she can feed her own people and a country twice as populous as Canada.
Now, what is the position in Canada? Not only do we allow American farm products in free, but under the favoured * nation treaties practically every other agricultural country in the world. Canada will become absolutely free trade in agricultural products. Free trade, we are told, means tlhe lowest possible prices, so that Canada, like Great Britain-the only two ctountries in the world-will have open doors for farm products, which means the cheapest farm products. Is it not the height of absurdity to ask the farmer of this country to sell his products in an open market and to buy in a protected market? It certainly does not look good to me.
However, in coming back to my original position, I wish to .say that I have the greatest regard for our neighbours to the south of us. Yet if we wish to maintain our own national integrity, if we wish to work cohesion' into the four scattered sections now known as Canada, we are positively sure of one safe way to do it-the dignified one, of doing our own business for our own people. Therefore, let us keep clear of business pacts, at least until we have some evidence that there is less selfishness in humanity than exists at the present time.
The pact, Mr. Chairman, that I wish to see consummated is that peace pact between our family and the United States. I wish to ^ pay my tribute to President Taft for his efforts in that direction, because I would like to see that pact so worded that it will allow every civilized people to come in, knowing full well that when we get fifty-one per cent of civilization into such a pact we will have a sure means of reducing the taxes of the people. President Taft addressed a meeting in New York on the 28th instant and made some very significant remarks. I find the following:
I have said that this is a critical time in the solution of the question of reciprocity. It is critical because unless it is now decided favourably to reciprocity, it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States. The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate her by a Chinese wall from the United States and to make her part of an imperial commercial band reaching from England around the world to England again, by a system of preferential tariffs, will derive an impetus from the rejection of this treaty, and if we would have reciprocity with all the advantages that I have described, and that I earnestly and sincerely believe will follow its adoption, we must take it now or give it up for ever.
I do not know that it would be possible to read a more significant statement than that. If President Taft objects to the idea of the Chinese wall between that country and this, he does not appear to have any objection to having a Chinese wall built with Canada and the United States within it, and a part of our own family outside of it because we find that upon the same occasion he stated that:
We tendered to the Canadian commissioners absolute free trade in all products of either country, manufactured or natural, but the Canadian commissioners did not feel justified in going so far.
We do not see any statement from him as to any suggestion of free trade with the other nations of the world. So, I say that it look's as though he would be quite willing to have a Chinese wall built around the two countries. What does his statement mean, that reciprocity must be taken by the United States now or never? It appears to me that it means that Canada has been proceeding along a certain path and, as Mr. Taft stated on another occasion, that Canada had reached the parting of the ways; it means that if we are allowed to continue along that path there (may be a vista opened up to us which would tend to continue to draw us along that path. It looks to me as if that was what President Taft had in his mind, and it is a statement that should be considered very carefully by the people of this country. If President Taft in his wisdom believes that if reciprocity is not accepted by the United States now they will never get it from us, he must also believe that there is something a great deal better for us if we continue as we have been going. I find that President Taft stated elsewhere on the same occasion, speaking of the government of this country:
The government is one entirely controlled by the people, and the bond uniting the Dominion and the mother country lis light .and almost imperceptible. There are no restrictions upon the trade or economic development of Canada which will interfere in the slightest with her carrying out her independent future.
That .is evidently what is uppermost in Mr. Taft's mind. That is not my ambition as a Canadian, and I do not believe that is the ambition of the majority of the people of Canada.
Now, there has been some talk about annexation. I believe a number of people in the United States who have been favouring this pact, had in their minds annexation. I consider it as a mark of intelligence on their part. We Canadians should have enough vanity to think that we would not lower the standard of citizenship of the United States if we joined the union, and



the addition of our vast virgin wealth would do much to replete the overdrawn stores of that country. However, no one in Canada is looking for annexation. Yet if our neighbours did think seriously of the matter, they could only do it through some trade arrangement. The orthodox way of catching a colt is by coaxing with a handful of oats. It might be interesting to quote Archibald Cary Cooledge from his work on ' The United States as a world power.' Mr. Coolidge was in the diplomatic service of the United States. He was with Secretary Taft to the Philippine Islands in 1905 and 1906, and is now a professor at Harvard University, and when a gentleman attains that position in such a seat of learning, he is capable of doing his own thinking. In referring to the Canadian situation and the abrogation of the Trade Treaty of 1854, he says:
*In consequence, when the pernod for which the trade treaty was made came to an end in 1865, the agreement was not renewed. Justifiable as such action may have been from a commercial point of view, it was none the less short-sighted. If the Americans believed that Canada would one day ooime into the union, they should have prepared the way for the event

And how?
-by cultivating dose trade relations, even if the weaker state did in the meantime get the greater profit from them. Wise foresight would have dictated the same sort of policy in the United States as was shown by Prussia in her formation of the German Zollveredn-a. willingness to sacrifice small temporary advantages in favour of large aims for the future. But a popular government is seldom guided by such long views if they mean immediate loss.
It appears to me that President Taft has gotten away from the idea of popular government. Speaking of the resources of the country, Mr. Cooledge says:
#

And grain is not her sole reliance; her forests will be called on more and more to supply the lumber which thei'r depleted American rivals will he unable to furnish; her fisheries, both in the east and in the west, are of untold value; she has copper north of Lake Superior, coal in Nova Scotia and elsewhere, mineral wealth of all kinds in her Rocky mountains only waiting to be exploited, and near the Alaska frontier, the gold of the Klondike. These resources, which are just beginning to he developed, hold forth a brilliant promise tor the future.
He then undertakes to discuss the question of Canada remaining in the British empire. He says:
* * # *
There is no doubt that the idea of being an equal member in ithe community of the largest and most populous empire in the world is one to appeal to the imagination, a magni-Mr. MAGRATH
ficient dream, capable of rousing the utmost enthusiasm in those who glory in the greatness of the English name. lit is also one which has for the Canadian farmer attractions of a mpre prosaic kind. Such an em pire would pretty certainly be bound together by preferential duties, if not actual free trade between the members and a protective tariff against outsiders, and this will give Canadian wheat a decided advantage on the London market over rival grain from Russia or The Argentine.
. Evidently, Sir, that was exactly the mind of President Taft when in his statement in New York the other day he told his people they must take reciprocity now or leave it alone for ever. I continue to quote from Mr. Coo-ledge:
There is no valid reason for regarding this dream as chimerical simply because the principles which it embodies received a check at the last English election. In one form or another the federation of Greater Britain is quite possible, and, though the issue will not be settled in a day, it bids fair to become within a generation one of the most momentous in politics. From the point of view of the United States there would be no cause to welcome this federation. If it should be based upon internal reciprocity with protection against other nations, American exports, both raw materials and manufactured goods would suffer. So vast are the markets included in the domain of Greater Britain, so imposing is its situation almost everywhere, that if this greatest of empires were to' follow a policy of exclusion towards others, it might provoke a league to break its power. _ In such a league, too, the United States might conceivably have a place; for from the closeness of its relatione with British America, it might be forced either to become part of this Greater Britain or as a matter of self-preservation to oppose it. This imay he fanciful speculation about the distant future, but it is a fact of the .present that the drawing together of Great Britain and Canada is in no sense to the benefit of the United States.
Now, Sir, while I am keenly anxious to see the British family closely cemented together, still I do not see that it should be objectionable to other nations. Canada would be foolish indeed to enter into any pact with another country that might interfere with the cementing process in her own family toeing proceeded with as time advances. I have faith in our own people. I wish to see some organic union among the British people, not for the purpose of dominating other people, but because I believe it would be best for humanity and best for us. And, when we accomplish that I think there is something even greater for us to look to: the welding together in some form with other peoples, because I have the idea that the Millennium is coming and it will come in that way. So far as this pact is concerned I am opposed to it. I was first disposed to favour it, but the more 1 revolved it in my mind the less I liked it. I

have no interest in any railway in this country; I have not been approached by any interest as to how I should vote in this matter; I have absolutely done my own thinking in connection with it. If it is good for the western country, if it is good for Alberta, it is good for me financially. But, Sir, I question if it is good. In any case, Sir, I do not believe in any suggestion that we are going to place a certain section of our people in the position that they will have to sell in an open market and buy in a protected market.


Mr. ALEXANDER HAGGART (Winnipeg).: Mr. Chairman, we are all more or less parochial. Some of us may think we are more cosmopolitan than others. Now, just consider the different elements and communities of which this,, Dominion, stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific' is made up. Perhaps the only industry which is common to all the provinces is farming, in its various branches of grain growing, meat producing, dairying, gardening, and so on; but the varying conditions are such that those exclusively engaged in any one of the branches may 'have little in common with the others. In fact, what would beneficially affect the tillers of the soil in one particular district or in one particular province might have the reverse effect in another. The first impulse of the individual is to consider how a particular measure will perhaps affect his own calling, the business in which his own money is invested, or the locality in which he lives. We are consciously or unconsciously affected by the trade conditions surrounding us, and by the opinions ;of those whom we respect who are living in the same neighbourhood as ourselves. I will not attempt to be less provincial cr parochial than others; but I would be sat-isfied_ if I gave a fair and an honest expression of opinion of the best and of the majority of the people amongst whom ] live or whom I represent; because I believe that by so doing I would be carrying out the trust that is imposed upon me bv those people. I am only one of the community, and I would be satisfied if I gave, as I believe I shall give, the opinion of the people of Winnipeg upon this great and important question. It is not difficult to ascertain what is the opinion of the people of Winnipeg. When these venerable politicians went to Washington, not at the command or instance of the people of the country, but at their own instance or of the instance of the government, the people of Winnipeg watched them closely. They waited for even any rumour that might come from behind the tyled doors where they were in counsel with the Americans, and they were not long in coming to a conclusion and expressing their opinion
265J
on the results of those negotiations which were presented to us in the resolution now before this House. As to what was the conclusion of the people of Winnipeg, we have sufficient evidence, and good evidence. We have a legislature there that had come fresh from the people, and after the matter was debated and considered in that legislature, which represented I think fairly the people of Manitoba, they unhesitatingly condemned this compact or proposal which was brought here from Washington by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs. We have another important body of men in that city, the board of 'trade, consisting of some hundreds of the best business men in that city, men who have grown up with the city, and have become prosperous with its prosperity. Then we have the grain -exchange, consisting of a large body of commercial men, able men, clever men. They considered it, and the result of their consideration was that they also condemned this arrangement. I believe that to-day a majority, and a large majority, of the people of Winnipeg are satisfied with the conditions which exist there, the -splendid conditions under which the city and they themselves have become prosperous, and they would have to be certain that what was proposed would be an improvement upon the present condition of affairs. Another gentleman whose opinion I think ought to carry some weight with hon. gentlemen opposite is Mr. D. C. Cameron. He is one of the first citizens of Winnipeg he is a wealthy man; he is engaged in a large business; he is first in every progressive and philanthropic enterprise in that city. There is no man in Winnipeg who is more respected than he is, and he is such a man that the supporters of hon. gentlemen opposite in the city of Winnipeg were very glad to have him as their candidate at the last election, and it is just possible, by reason of his standing and by reason of the manner in which he was treated and considered by the city of Winnipeg, that he might have represented that city to-day in this House, were it not for the fact that the poor man was l^irdened and handicapped by the sins of ' the gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. I will give another certificate of character to that gentleman. He received at that election nearly 7,000 votes of the people of Winnipeg, more votes than were given to any minister sitting on the opposite side of the House; more than were given to any gentleman sitting behind them. He is known as one of the most progressive gentlemen in the city of Winnipeg, and I will guarantee that he knows more of sane and proper business methods than any brace of gentlemen sitting on the


Alexander Haggart: The city has been spending on that undertaking half a million dollars every year during the past five or six years, and inside of a year we are promised that
30,000	horse-power will be brought into the city and eventually 60,000 horse-power at the lowest cost, and that will be furnished manufacturers at actual cost for the purpose of encouraging these industries. _ It is said by the eminent board of engineers that the power can be sold for $18 per horse-power, and that the power to customers can be brought down to $12.50. But before we could take any steps towards building that dam, which is one of the most magnificent municipal works on this continent, we had to build 24 miles of railway for the purpose of getting in the plant and material. We are told that we need not be discouraged, that our manufactures are not to be interfered with by this proposed agreement. The hon., member for South Grey (Mr. Miller), I understand, told his constituents the other day that they might rest assured that manufactures in the town of Hanover had nothing to fear. But we know well that when our farmers have got one concession, they are not going to rest contented. Are the farmers to whom the alleged concession is now to be made to remain quiet? They tell us plainly, no; and this is but the commencement of an agitation greater than that which we witnessed last year. The present concession they will accept only as an instalment. The edge of the wedge is only being entered, and they will not be contented to sell their goods in an unprotected market and be compelled to buy everything they require in a protected market. By this pact, therefore, the government are opening the door for absolute free trade. We have said time and again on this side of the House that the people were never consulted, but my hon. friend the Minister Customs, the other night, in a solemn voice that sounded like the solemn tones of some cathedral bell, told us that the people would be consulted perhaps sooner than we desired. Well, we on this side want that election now. We want the people to be consulted at once. The government cannot bring on the election too soon to suit hon. members in the opposition.
You pass this reciprocity resolution, you pass an Act bringing it into force, it is an accomplished fact; then, after the people have made their adjustments, given up the old markets and tried to form new alliances, you come back to them again now that this is done, you invite them to come back to the old situation. They have made one change, they have suffered loss, there has been dislocation of business and ruin in some cases. Now the agreement is in force and you wish to go back again after you have severed connections with the old customers and have made new alliances with other people. We have been told by the Finance Minister that reciprocity with the United States has, from time immemorial, been the policy of all parties. This has been repeated by some newspapers. There is no question that after the sudden abrogation of that treaty in 1864, the people of Canada would have liked to have had a renewal of that treaty. They had had extensive trade relations with the Americans for the preceding 12 years and were suddenly cut-off from that market. They had not formed new alliances and new trade routes. We had not acquired new markets at that time, we had no communication with the Atlantic in the winter, we were dependent entirely upon' the Americans, and our system of transportation was very primitive. But because reciprocity was a good thing at that time, and during the continuation of that treaty and because it was hard to suffer the rebuffs we then suffered when reciprocity was taken away from us without any particular reason being given except that it was not in the interest of the United States, it does follow that it is best now, we set ourselves to acquire new markets for our products and developed our own interprovincial trade, we set to work to build our railways and, perhaps, that is partly the reason why to-day we have the magnificent system of railways that we have, uniting our provinces and strengthening the bonds of confederation. We were told another story by the Prime Minister. He was in error in telling it. He said that in Manitoba in the early eighties, we had an incipient rebellion, and that the cause of that rebellion was that the people of the Northwest wanted to trade with the south, that they wanted to trade north and south. I cannot say that he did not read history aright, he was one of the makers of history at that time, and if he would brush up his recollection he would find that if we had had ten railroads running north and south we could not have made use of them in the ahsence of trade relations with the south. The same high tariffs were there, the gates were shut. The reason of the little trouble there was that the people of Manitoba wanted competition. They thought the Canadian Pacific railway was charging rates that agriculture would not bear. The merchants in Winnipeg thought- they were charging rates on imports that the trade would not bear and they simply wanted competition. The local government finally chartered the Red River Valiev railway and the mono-noly clause in the Canadian Pacific rail-wav charter was deleted. We had then in onwer one .Tee Martin, subsequently a member of this House, and one Thomas



[Stage Direction]
Greenway, who started to build the railway and then transferred it to the Northern Pacific railway, and shouted: We have got competition. They had handed it over to the Northern Pacific, and the competition when they weTe compelled to disclose it, consisted simply of a letter from the president of the Northern Pacific railway that his road would charge no more to bring wheat to Duluth than the Canadian Pacific railway charged to bring it to Port Arthur. Fortunately for the province of _ Manitoba that government was in its dying days, and it died and was buried, thank God, and there has never been any resurrection since. Another able government came into power, and they took hold of the railway situation. They had to buy back that railway, built largely with Mani-tobar money, from the Northern Pacific, and they made a new deal with the Canadian Northern railway by which they controlled the rates, and as a result of which there is in Manitoba to-day more mileage of Canadian Northern railway than there is of Canadian Pacific railway. The Manitoba government have control of the rates, and again there farming now is a paying business. Manitoba benefited, and every province to the west of Manitoba incidentally benefited. The Canadian Northern railway began in Canada, ran through Canadian soil in Canadian territory and terminated in Canadian ports at Port Arthur and Fort William. So that now all our grain instead of going by way of Duluth, by American cities, paying tribute to American railroads, now goes over our own territory through our own ports, over our own railways to the east, through our own elevators, into ocean steamers-, to be carried to the markets of the world, or is carried to our own cities to be ground in our own mills to the profit of the whole people of Canada.
The monopoly clause of the Canadian Pacific railway, although irksome, at the time, was not altogether an evil. At this distance of time we must acknowledge the foresight of that great statesman, who desired to make the channels of commerce between the eastern provinces, and the western territory wider and deeper before that great work would be subject to the competition by diversion of our trade to the United States.
Members on this side of the House would welcome the execution of the government's threat of an election. We believe that the opinion of the people is against this pact, and it is only fair that they should have an opportunity of expressing an opinion on it before it becomes law.	.
I shall touch upon another question which has been referred to by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. With reference to the speech or address of President Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).
Taft at -New York the other day, I am informed by one who was at that meeting that that address was in manuscript, that it was read closely by the president from that manuscript and that that manuscript was handed to the press. Evidently what he said was said with deliberation and not in the heat and excitement of a debate. I think that address ought to be read carefully by every Canadian, that it ought to be in every Canadian home so that^every elector in this country might read it for himself. First the president speaks of wheat, oats and barley. We have heard a great deal of that from northwest Liberal members; they say that we are going to get rich on wheat, barley and oats. Take the province of Manitoba and the states of Dakota and Minnesota, follow that 49th parallel as far west as you like, make an excursion 40 miles to the north amongst our own people, and make another excursion 20 miles or 40 miles to the south, and you will find that, -man for man, our farmers are better than the Americans, they are better educated, they are more intelligent, they are more industrious than the men on the other side of the line. Take farm for farm, and you will find that on our side we have better kept farms, we have better field conditions than they have; we have better and more comfortable buildings and farm houses than they have, and our farmers are getting wealthy and making more rapid progress than the Americans. These, Sir, are not the people with whom we should make a trade alliance. Now, with reference to wheat, barley, and oats, we are told that we should vote for this pact because we will get higher prices for our farm products, and at the same time the consumer will get his bread at cheaper prices. Now, let us see what President Taft says:
With respect to wheat and barley and oats, conditions differ in different parts of Canada and in different parts of the United States. Classing them together as on the whole, the conditions are substantially the same. In prices of farm land the differences are no greater between Canada and the United States than between the different states in the United States. In the matter of farm wages, on the whole, they are about the same.
It is said that this is an agreement that affects agricultural products more than manufactures. That is true, but if we are to have an interchange of products between the two countries of any substantial amount the chief part of it must necessarily be in agricultural products. As it is, we export to Canada more agricultural products than we receive from her and so it will be afterwards. The effect is not going, in my judgment, to lower the specific prices of agricultural products in our country. It is going to steady them and it is going to produce an interchange of products at a profit which will be beneficial.

How is it going to be beneficial when there is to be no increase in prices? The fact is that we have better prices on our side of the line. About two weeks ago, - when I was in Winnipeg, I took up the St. Paul ' Pioneer Press,' which prides itself on the accuracy of its market reports, and I took up the Winnipeg ' Free Press/ which I presume is more accurate in its market reports than it is in its politics, and I compared the prices of the markets in St. Paul and Winnipeg on the same day, and with the exception of wheat, I found that farm products were bringing a higher price in Winnipeg than they were in St. Paul. In St. Paul wheat was two cents higher than it was in Winnipeg. Now, I wish to call attention to an extract in this remarkable speech of President Taft, on the 28th of April. He comes down from his throne, and steps upon the platform, where he talks to the newspaper men, and tells them what kind of a reciprocity gospel he wants them to grind out. There are thousands of them there from all over the United States. Now we have heard people talking annexation, but the spirit that animates the President's remarks is something more than that, it is the spirit of conquest. Now, listen to what he says:
Another and very conclusive reason for closing the compact is the opportunity which it gives us to increase the supply of our natural resources, which, with the wastefulness of children, we have wantonly exhausted.
He is looking with a jealous eye upon the riches God has given us in this Canada of ours. He continues :
The timber resources of Canada which will open themselves to us inevitably under the operation of this agreement are notv apparently inexhaustible. I say apparently inexhaustible, for if the same procedure were to be adopted in respect to them that we have followed in respect to our own forests, I presume that they too might he exhausted, but, fortunately for Canada and for ns, we and they have learned much more than we realized two decades ago with respect to the necessity for proper methods of forestry and of lumber cutting. And hence we may be safe in saying that under proper modern methods the timber resources open to us in Canada may be made inexhaustible, and we may derive ample supplies of timber from Canadian sources to the profit of Canada and four our own benefit.
There are other natural resources which I need not stop to enumerate which will become available to us as onr own if we adopt and maintain commercial union with Canada; and this is one of the chief reasons that ought to commend the Canadian agreement to the farseeing statesmanship of leaders of American public opinion.
But there are other-even broader- grounds than this that should lead to the adoption of this agreement. Canada's superficial area is greater than that of the United States between the oceans. Of course, it has
a good deal of waste land in the far north, hut it has enormous tracts of unoccupied land or land settled so sparsely as to he substantially unoccupied, which in the next two or three decades will rapidly acquire a substantial and valuable population. The government is one entirely controlled by the people and the bond uniting the Dominion and the mother wintry is light and almost imperceptible. There are no restrictions upon the trade or economic development of Canada which will interfere in the slightest with her carving out her independent future. The attitude of the people is that of affection toward the mother country, and of a sentimental loyalty toward her royal head. But for practical purposes the control exercised from England by executive or parliament is imponderable.
Then comes that significant peroration in which the president refers to this as a critical time in the solution of the question of reciprocity. He says:
I have said that this is a critical bime in the solution of the question of reciprocity. It is critical because, unless it is now decided favourably to reciprocity, it is exceedingly probable that no such opportunity will ever again come to the United States.
Might he not have said:	We will never
have another opportunity to appeal to a Prime Minister of Canada who is more willing to force this reciprocity pact through parliament than he is to go to the Imperial Conference; we may never have a Finance Minister in the government of Canada again who spent the days of his early manhood in trying to dismember this confederation; and we may never have another Minister of Customs in the government of Canada who will be so easy a mark as long as we protect his cookies and his candies.
The forces which are at work in England and in Canada to separate her by a Chinese wall
[Stage Direction]
Who 'built that Chinese wall, and how long has it been there?
[Stage Direction]
to separate her by a Chinese wall from
the United States and bo make her part of an Imperial commercial hand reaching from England around the world to England agarn.
The hope, the dream, the vision of better men than those who occupy at present the treasury benches of this country, I hope will be realized, and that the efforts of the present government of Canada to break that commercial bond with England will fail. I am opposed to this reciprocity agreement, and I believe the majority of the people of Canada are opposed to it, and I hope it will not be for the historian in days to come to apply to the present ministry of Canada the words of Shakespeare in Hamlet's soliloquy, and to say : 'The evil that men do lives after them, their good is often interred with their bones.'
Mr. ARTHURS.: As the hour is getting late I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.	.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Go on.


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Arthurs) prefers to adjourn we have no objection.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: We will take up the various Bills and resolutions on the Order Paper, all except the Bank Bill, and if there is time afterwards we will resume in Committee of Ways and Means.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the Bills be taken up in their regular order?


William Stevens Fielding: Bills and orders; there is quite a number of them.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, May 4, 1911.