1903-03-13

Mr. SPEAKER.: I have the honour to inform the House that Mr. Thomas Barnard Flint, Esquire, has been appointed Clerk of the House, in place of Sir John Bourinot, deceased.



ELECTION PETITIONS-JUDGMENTS OF SUPREME COURT.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have also the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, a certified copy of the judgment of the said court in the election appeal for the electoral district of Two Mountains, by which the judgment of the lower court declaring the election void, was affirmed.
In conformity with chapter 9, section 46, of the Revised Statutes, I issued my warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to make out a new writ of election for the said electoral district.
I have also the honour to inform the House that I have received from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada, certified copies of the judgments and decisions of the said court in the matter of the appeals made from the decisions of the trial judges in the lower courts, relating to the elections :-
For the electoral district of Laval ; and
For the electoral district of St. James (two judgments) ;
by which the said appeals were dismissed, and the decisions of the trial judges were affirmed.



CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have also the honour to inform the House that I have received from the judges selected for the trial of election petitions pursuant to ' The Dominion Controverted Elections Act,' certificates and reports relating to the elections:-
For the electoral district of Addington ;
For the electoral district of Beauharnols ;
For the electoral district of the West Riding of the county of Durham ;
For the electoral district of the West Riding of the county of Hastings ;
For the electoral district of Laval ;
For the electoral district of Terrebonne ; and
For the electoral district of the West Riding of the county of York, Ont.
The said election petitions were severally dismissed, and the sitting members declared duly elected.



VACANCIES.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have also the honour to inform the House that, during the recess, I have received communications from several members, notifying me that the following vacancies had occurred in the representation, viz. :-
Of Thomas Christie, Esq., member for the electoral district of Argenteuil, by deeease ;


Of Edward H.: Horsey, Esq., member for the electoral district of the North Riding of the county of Grey, by decease ;
Of the Hon. Joseph Raymond Prefontaiue, member for the electoral district of Maison-neuve, by the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown, to wit ; the office of Minister of Marine and Fisheries ;
Of Thomas Barnard Flint, Esq., member for the electoral district of Yarmouth, by the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown ;
Of Angus McLeod, Esq., member for the electoral district of the North Riding of the county of Ontario, by decease ;
Of George Ritchie Maxwell, Esq., member for the electoral district of Burrard, by decease ;
Of the Hon. Joseph Raymond Prefontaine, member for the electoral district of Terrebonne, by the acceptance of an office of emolument under the Crown, to wit ; the office of Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and


Of Joseph H.: Legris, Esq., member for the electoral district of MaskinongS, by resignation.
I accordingly issued my several warrants to the Cleric of the Crown in Chancery to make out new writs of election for the said electoral districts respectively.



NEW MEMBERS.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have further the honour to inform the House that, during the recess, the Clerk of the House received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, certificates of the election and return of the following members :-
Of Thomas Christie, Esq., for the electoral district of Argenteuil ;
Of Bowman Brown Law, Esq., for the electoral district of Yarmouth ;
Of the Hon. Joseph Raymond Prefontaine, for the electoral district of Maisonneuve ;
Of James Hamilton Ross, Esq., for the electoral district of the Yukon Territory ;
Of Hormisdas Mayrand, Esq., for the electoral district of MaskinongS;
Of Thomas Inkerman Thomson, Esq., for the electoral district of the North Riding of the county of Grey ;
Of Robert George Macpherson, Esq., for the electoral district of Burrard ; and
Of Joseph Arthur Calixte Ethier, Esq., for the electoral district of Two Mountains.



MEMBERS INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Joseph Raymond Prefontaine, member for the electoral district of Maisonneuve, introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding).
Robert George Macpherson, Esq., member for the electoral district of Burrard. introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and Mr. Galliher.
Thomas Inkerman Thomson, Esq., member for the electoral district of the North Riding of the county of Grey, introduced by Mr. Borden (Halifax) and Mr. Blain.
Joseph Arthur Calixte Ethier, Esq., member for the electoral district of Two Mountains, introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine).
Hormisdas Mayrand, Esq., member for the electoral district of Maskinonge, introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prdfontaine).
Thomas Christie, Esq., momber for the electoral district of Argenteuil, introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Inland Revenue (Hon. Mr. Bernier).
Bowman Brown Law, Esq., member for the electoral district of Yarmouth, introduced by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) and Mr. Fraser.
Lawrence Geoffrey Power: 



FIRST READING.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 1) respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office.-The Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend His Excellency the Governor General this day in the Senate Chamber, His Excellency was pleased to make a speech to both Houses of Parliament, a copy of which is as follows :-
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate :
Gentlemen of the House of Commons :
I am glad to be able to congratulate you on the continued prosperity that prevails throughout the Dominion. Canada has received - many blessings during the past year which call for the expression of our heartfelt gratitude to a kind Providence.
I had the pleasure of visiting London last summer in anticipation of the Coronation of His Majesty, and to meet on that occasion representatives from all parts of the Empire bringing with them assurances of the loyalty and contentment that prevails throughout His Majesty's widely extended possessions ; and though, at one time, fears were entertained that the King's illness would have involved a further postponement of the ceremony, it was a source of much joy and happiness to His Majesty's subjects that his health was so speedily and perfectly restored.
Representatives of this government participated in the important Colonial Conference which was called by His Majesty's Government in connection with ' the Coronation. The report of the proceedings of the conference, including the documents submitted by the Canadian representatives, has already been given to the public, by His Majesty's Government in London. I feel ' assured that much good will result from the bringing the leading public men of the great 1 self-governing colonies into direct contact with each other and with the statesmen of the motherland.
The great influx of population into our North-western territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
A treaty has been entered into between His Majesty and the government of the United States, under which the proper delimitation of the boundaries between Canada and Alaska is to be judicially determined by a tribunal of six impartial jurists of repute.
As a result of the recent decennial census, the representation of the different provinces must be re-adjusted, as required by the British North America Act, and a Bill will be introduced for that purpose.
Bills with respect to the creation of a Railway Commission, the amendment of the Patent Laws, the Militia Act, Chinese immigration,

the reorganization of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, the settlement of Railway labour disputes, and various other subjects will be submitted to you.
Gentlemen of the House of Commons :
The public accounts will be laid before you and also the estimates for the coming year, which have been prepared with due regard to economy and the rapid growth of the Dominion.
Honourable Gentlemen of the Senate :
Gentlemen of the House of Commons :
I pray that in the consideration of these matters and in the performance of all the labours which will devolve on you, your deliberations, under Divine guidance, will tend still to increase the prosperity and happiness of our people.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved :: That the Speech of His Excellency the Governor General to both Houses of Parliament of the Dominion of Canada, be taken into consideration to-morrow.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lanrier) moved :: That select standing committees of this House for the present session be appointed for the following purposes 1. On Privileges and Elections. 2. On Expiring Laws. 3. On Railways, Canals, and Telegraph Lines. 4. On Miscellaneous Private Bills. 5. On Standing Orders. 6. On Printing. 7. On Public Accounts. 8. On Banking and Commerce. 9. On Agriculture and Colonization,-which said committees shall severally be empowered to examine and inquire into all such matters and things as may be referred to them by the House ; and to report from time to time their observations and opinions thereon ; with power to send for persons, papers and records.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That a special committee of five members be appointed to prepare and report with all convenient speed a list of members to form the select standing committees ordered by this House this day, such select committee to be composed of the following members : Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Mr. Borden (Halifax), Sir Richard Cartwright, Hon. Mr. Sutherland (Oxford), and Hon. Mr. Haggart.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER moved :: That a select committee be appointed to supervise the official report of the debates of this House during the present session, with power to report from time to time, to be composed of Messrs. Ball, Champagne, Charlton, Clarke, Earle, Holmes, La. Rivi&re, Macdonald, Madore, Monet, Cloche (Marquette), Russell, Scott, Sutherland (Essex), and Taylor.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Is there any change in the personnel of the committee 7


The PRIME MINISTER.: It is the same as last year.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Joint Librarians of Parliament for 1902.-Mr. Speaker.
Report of the Department of Public Works.-Hon. Mr. Sutherland, Oxford.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the adjournment of the House.
Robert Laird Borden: Before the motion is carried, I would like to inquire of my right lion, friend when the usual explanations will be given as to the ministerial changes ? I think the course pursued last year was that the right hon. gentleman told us that he would give notice of a day, and subsequently he named a day on which the explanations were given.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The first duty we have to dispose of is the presentation of an Address to His Excellency in reply to the Speech from the Throne. As soon as that duty has been accomplished, I shall be prepared to give the explanations immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 4 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 13, 1903.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Before the presentation of petitions, I would ask hon. members to write down their names on the petitions which they present. This is in accordance with the rule, and, if attended to, it will avoid difficulty.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES (Hon. Mr. Raymond Prefon-taine).: If I may be allowed at this stage, I would like to give to the House the following information from Charlottetown, P.E.I., dated March 12th, 1903 :
' Stanley ' got clear Ice pack this morning, six miles east Cape Bear, and now alongside ' Minto.' Gulf ice very heavy to eastward.



NEW MEMBERS.

Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery a certificate of the election and return of Samuel Desjardins, Esquire, for the electoral district of Terrebonne.



MEMBER INTRODUCED.

[Stage Direction]
Samuel Desjardins, Esq., member for the electoral district of Terrebonne, introduced by the Prime Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier), and the Minister of Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick).

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of His Excellency's Speech at the opening of the session.
Mr. ANDREW T. THOMPSON (Haldi-mand and Monck).: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that an humble address be presented to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada in reply to the Speech from the Throne. At the very outset, Sir, permit me to say that I keenly appreciate the honour which has been done me in imposing upon me this pleasant task-an honour which I feel must necessarily have been intended chiefly for the worthy constituency of Haldimand and Monck, which I represent. Haldimand, Sir, deserves well at the hands of this House-a House standing for the free institutions which we enjoy ; for it was Haldimand which returned to the parliament of old Canada, on his coming back from his exile in the United States, that true Canadian patriot to whom we owe so much of our present day privileges, the late William Lyon Mackenzie. Assaulted in Montreal, burned in efligy in Kingston, mobbed in Toronto, it was for our quiet rural constituency to recognize in this man the true flame of patriotism, unadulterated by self-seeking or self-interest; and so, Sir, I repeat, the county of Haldimand deserves well at the hands of this House.
But enough of this ancient history ; let me come to the matter in hand. Once more we meet together, Sir, with little to regret, with much to be thankful for, during the year which has flown away so quickly since last we gathered here-with little to regret from the standpoint of the nation, but with sorrow in our hearts for true comrades stricken down by the hand of death -one in the fulness-of years, one in the glory of his youth, and all at a time of usefulness to their country-a country which they, irrespective of party, deeply and truly loved. Of national calamities, Sir, I am pleased to say we have had none whatever. No volcanic eruptions have overwhelmed, with inconceivable destruc-Mr. SPEAKER.
tion, whole prosperous communities in one brief day ; no earthquakes have wrecked our cities, burying the inhabitants in their ruins; no cyclones have swept over our country, leaving death and destruction in their path ; no plague has stricken our people in their thousands with its rapid death; no famine has slowly tortured them to the end of all things human ; no war has prevailed in our boundaries leaving in its track burned homesteads and maimed and wretched humanity. By the association of ideas one passes very naturally from the fact of the absence of war in our country to its happy termination in another part of the empire, far-away South Africa. How greatly has our realm increased, Mr. Speaker, within the last few years. Canada is no longer, a number of semi-discordant provinces experimentally strung together by an Imperial Act of parliament, but a nation well knit and well balanced-and more than a nation, a nation within an empire. And so it is that we find ourselves taking the keenest of interest in a war waged on another continent and at a distance of thousands of miles from our shores, and able not only to congratulate England on the termination of her war, but to congratulate ourselves on the termination of our war.
Even were this the proper occasion for so doing, Sir, time would be altogether inadequate for the discussion of the merits of the quarrel between Britain and Boer, which culminated in that struggle in South Africa. This much at least, we may feel sure of-that we, confident in the righteousness of our own cause, were no more confident and houest than our brave foemen, who believe firmly in the righteousness of theirs. And, on this common ground, at least, we may meet and agree-that war is in itself a shocking thing, and its termination on terms favourable alike to conquerors and conquered a matter for heartfelt thankfulness on the part of all of us.
Since the birth of this parliament, now some two years old, Australia has federated. We remember that, on an occasion similar to this, the gentleman who was then moving the Address, referred with pride to the fact that the successful union of our own provinces had, to a very large extent, actuated our fellow colonists in the island continent in taking that momentous step, In Australia, however, they have but one race. In Canada, we are fortunate enough to have two. And so we sincerely hope that, having set an example of political confederation to one part of the empire, we may now, by our historical record, inspire another great part of the empire in such a way that these recently diverse warring races may for the future dwell in peace and harmony in a united South Africa. And here, Sir, let me, very briefly, trace the history of French and English with a view to applying to this case the lessons

which we gather from that history. It is but a century and a half ago since these imperial peoples were striving for the mastery with bitter hate. Each called to its aid the savage Indian as auxiliary, and in many a peaceful home women and children fell beneath the savage tomahawk or the bloody scalping knife, as the war-party of the one or the other made incursion in those iron days that are past. We know that after battles more creditable to the participants than these awful cruel forays fought by men brave and heroic, battles fought with varying success, won alternately by one and the other, victory perched on the banner of Great Britain ; and, in 1763, by the treaty of Paris, Canada took her place among the family of young nations within the British Empire. What optimist, the most pronounced at that time, but would have prophesied nothing other than a century of strife and hatred, after a war so terrible as that which had just been concluded ? But what was the event. In less than thirteen years after that, our French Canadian brothers repudiated with scorn the invitation to join the revolted colonies, and arming themselves to repel the invasion of the Americans, slew their leader below the frowning walls of old Quebec, and planted the British flag more firmly than ever on the ramparts of that world famous citadel. After less than half a century, came the war of 1812, that struggle of the few against the many. Once more our French Canadian brothers sprang to arms, and, under gallant DeSalaberry hurled back the alien foe at Chateauguay, a second time saving Canada to the British Crown. Very shortly thereafter, when our forefathers-then called rebels, now called patriots-took up arms for the achievement of those rights which they felt to be their due, Quebec, under Papineau, was no whit behind Ontario under Mackenzie, and, while both uprisings were for the moment failures, the seed watered by patriot blood has long since borne fruit in our splendid selfgovernment of to-day, a self-government at the head of which sits our honoured chief, a true British statesman of French origin. And so, Sir, I think I may say that following a war so cruel as that I have described, when we find results so highly satisfactory, we are not mere idle dreamers if we look forward to the day when the two races in South Africa will be united as the two races are united here by ties of mutual respect and regard.
Among the chief event of the year that has passed one must give no secondary place to the crowning of His Gracious Majesty King Edward VII. of England, King Edward I., of United Canada. We can easily recall the sorrow that came upon us when we learned so unexpectedly that His Majesty had been stricken down with an illness which threatened to be fatal in its results, and I can assure
you, that our loyalty to the King was increased by our sympathy with the man in proportion to this was our joy at his complete recovery, and I can say in all truthfulness that not one in all the long line of British sovereigns ever rode to the Minster with more sincere acclaims than did our King. From the standpoint of military representation, it is somewhat a disappointment to say that Canada was almost unrepresented at the King's coronation. But, for this, the untoward event of the King's illness was alone to blame. Composed of 657 picked men, the contingent of Canada almost doubled in numbers the contingents from the Cape, New Zealand and Australia, and almost quadrupled the forces from any one of these alone. I can assure you that if this contingent did have to come back owing to the fact that when the King's operation in June was announced we were assured on the highest authority that the coronation could not follow until October, it was not time and money wasted, for these men saw and were seen. Everywhere, in London, in Southampton, in Liverpool, they were met by people in huge crowds who turned out to give them welcome-to give them welcome as a demonstration of the feelings which were held toward them because of the achievements of our brave brothers in arms from Canada in South Africa, achievements freshened in the minds of the people by the recent events at Hart's River with which that whole country was then ringing. Now, Sir-and in making the remarks I am about to make I hope I shall not be accused of too plain speaking, or be held to belong too much to that modern school of diplomacy which believes in speaking the truth in the case of nations as well as individuals-I would call attention to the fact that five years ago a contingent was sent to England to celebrate the diamond jubilee of Her Gracious Majesty Queen Victoria, and it met with a hearty welcome indeed.	But what a difference between then and now ' In the former case we found that hospitality was the keynote and that, while the air was friendly enough, it was, to some extent patronizing nevertheless. This came as a surprise to Canadians, because, arguing from the historical record and from race ancestry they knew that they were the peers of any within the broad confines of the empire. But they learned that the English did not know it. Meantime South Africa had intervened, and what a change had come over the spirit of the times. Our English friends had learned to recognize the worth of Canadians, and, with that honesty and generosity which is characteristic of them when they do know, they were not slow to extend to us full recognition for the work our men had done and to give Canadians due equality. And so, in this case, our men had the satisfaction of feeling the new state of affairs, where to some extent

at least, in the. old days humiliation was j their portion. And this brings me to that part of His Excellency's speech which deals with the colonial conference in Great Britain. It would be hard to overestimate the vast importance of the results likely to flow from a meeting of that nature-a meeting called together by the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain to take advantage of the gathering in London of so many leading statesmen from the outlying parts of greater Britain to attend the coronation. The work of this conference fell chiefly under three heads. First, the political relations of the mother country with the colonies ; second, imperial defence ; third, the commercial relations between the various colonies and Great Britain. With regard to the first, the colonial representatives felt in general, and the Canadian representatives in particular, that the existing political relations were satisfactory in the extreme. Under no conceivable circumstances could we enjoy greater freedom to take advantage of every opportunity to develop our enormous resources, and that for the present at least is all our people crave. In this connection it may be opportune for me to read the opinion expressed by the Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. Mr. Chamberlain said:
It would be a fatal mistake to transform the spontaneous enthusiasm which has been so readly shown throughout the empire into anything in the nature of an obligation which might be at this time unwillingly assumed or only formally accepted.
The good sense of that, I believe, must be evident to every one, and I cannot see why the sentiment should not have been carried further and applied to the matter of imperial defence also. This, I know, has been an oft mooted question. Various and many have been the schemes proposed in this connection. One frequently urged and strongly pressed has been the collection of a fund by taxation in the colonies to be handed over to the British government for expenditure, but I believe that such a scheme savors too much of taxation without representation to be popular on this continent where the application of that principle worked so great a trouble over a century ago. What money we have to expend must be expended by our own responsible ministers and by them alone, until that day shall come, which I fear is yet far distant- that day hoped for but hardly to be expected for some considerable time yet- when our own Canadian house is set in order in the matter of defence. The scheme propounded by the British government was the formation of an Army Reserve Corps in Canada, liable to special service across the ocean and specially trained, to be used by the imperial government in the case of war, but only with the consent of the colonial government to which the particular force belonged. At first blush the scheme, sub-Mr. THOMPSON (Haldimand).
ject to that condition, seemed perfectly safe, but after all it was somewhat misleading. What colony would expend large sums of money in the creation of a force for a special purpose and then refuse that force to the imperial government when required ? The acceptance of such a proposition would, as a matter of course, mean the granting the use of these men whenever the government which raised the force were called upon to allow it to be utilized. In the case of the South African war, we gave aid freely and spontaneously, but with the distinct understanding that our action should not create a precedent, and that we should be free to exercise our own judgement as to our course in the future. Were it not for that understanding, in what position would we find ourselves? Simply this that in the case of wars declared by the British parliament, in the declaration of which we had no say, which would be forced on us without our consent being asked, we would be in the very anomalous position of forced contribution, the equivalent of having consented to give up some of the rights of self-government which we so highly value.
As one having some experience in the matter of recruiting even for a twelve day camp, may I say, with all diffidence, that the raising of the Canadian quota, which was fixed at 10,000 men, subject to special training-which must take at least three months in every year-would be in busy Canada entirely impossible. I doubt if a tithe of that number of men could be got together to drill that number of months every year. Therefore, I think that our representatives were quite right in not consenting to the scheme propounded by the mother country. And, mark you, Sir, it was refused in no mean spirit, but simply because our representatives felt that they had a knowledge of the local conditions in Canada which the imperial authorities could not possibly have. And in order to convince the House of the absolute correctness of the attitude of our representatives as Canadians, let me read to you the closing paragraph of the memo presented by the Canadian ministers to the imperial authorities last summer. It is as follows :
In conclusion the ministers represent that while the Canadian government are obliged to dissent from the measures proposed, they fully appreciate the obligation of the Dominion to make expenditures for the purposes of defence in proportion to the increasing population and wealth of the country. They are willing that these expenditures shall be so directed as to relieve the tax payer of the mother country from some of the burdens she now bears ; and they have the strongest desire to carry out their defence schemes in co-operation with the imperial authorities and under the advice of experienced imperial officers, in so far as this is consistent with the principle of local self government which has proved so great a factor in the promotion of imperial unity.

With regard to the trade question, our representatives reaffirmed the principle of preferential trade and urged its adoption by the colonies and the motherland, reserving the right, in the event of this change of policy within the empire not materializing, to take such steps as they deemed expedient. I may say, Sir, that while our leaders were sitting behind closed doors, we of lesser responsibilities had excellent opportunities of gauging the political sentiment of the rank and file throughout all parts of the empire-at least from every state, province and dominion in the self-governing parts of that empire-and delighted were we to find that the splendid men from Ceylon and the Cape, from New Zealand and Australia, stand heart and hand with us, seeing eye to eye, willing and eager for a lasting partnership with Britain, but too much of British blood to stand for one moment the slightest imputation of inferiority, building up in each new nation upon the sure foundation of equality a patriotism and a loyalty as wide and as deep as those seas Britannia rules. Tried in the furnace seven times heated these men have proved their worth, worth which ought never to have been doubted, for their blood is of the best, their environment of the best. No slum-bred men they, but for the most part each a laird on his own broad acres, independent of all save law and order and God, like the true British yeomen of old.
Now, I come to the question of the Alaskan Boundary Commission. That commission is intended to deal with the dispute between Canada and the United States regarding the boundaries in that far away part of North America, concerning which both nations are now at variance. At any time the discovery of rich gold deposits in those territories and the consequent inrush of miners might lead to a conflict of jurisdiction which would be most irritating and dangerous to the people of both countries, and therefore we view with satisfaction the appointment of this commission. We wish in Canada to live on terms of peace with the other nations of the world. We do not want one single foot of the territory of the United States, but I say with equal emphasis that we do not want the United States to take one single foot of the soil of Canada, and so we are well content with the scope of this commission which has to do with the ascertainment of what is a matter of considerable difficulty, but after all is only one of fact, and that is the deciding of where the boundary line actually runs. It is true that finality may not after all be reached for the reason that the jurists from each country who are to sit on this comission are equal in number.
But why borrow trouble ? This much at least we know, that the present attitude of the United States, from the standpoint of friendliness, is far different from the position maintained by it for so many years
in contending that there was nothing at all to arbitrate. So we say that even should this commission fail, it is quite possible that the door would be left ajar for the entry of some other commission, the results of which may be and we hope will be, more satisfactory.
Now, Sir, for me to sit down with no mention of domestic concerns, concerns which more nearly affect us than those imperial matters on which I have been touching, interesting as the latter are, would indeed, in my opinion, be a mistake. And first let me say a brief word as to the very satisfactory influx of immigrants now pouring into Canada. We have, as you know, vast areas of fertile, habitable land for which we must have a population if Canada is to take her place, as we confidently expect her to take her place, one day among the great nations of the world. But, Sir, in my opinion there is something even more important than the rapid settlement of Canada, and that is the proper settlement of Canada. I would infinitely rather see people coming into Canada belonging to those two great races which hitherto have colonized our land, than to see it filling up with off-seourings from the cities of foreign countries, the very class of people we do not want.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is not only my sentiment, but I believe it Is the sentiment of everybody on this side of the House, including the hon. Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton), who takes care that our settlers are all of the best. To what class do I refer, in chief ? The settlers that we are after are those able to till the fertile land of the Territories and Manitoba, yes, and of new Ontario and new Quebec, for we must not forget the undeveloped resources of the older provinces in our enthusiasm for the new. These settlers we want, and these settlers we are getting in many cases farmers .with some means besides their own strong right arm, means which will enable them more rapidly to make wealth in time to come. And from what places are we getting these settlers ? From the inhabitants of the British Isles and the United States mainly, men living under institutions similar to our own, men spe&king the same language, so that in a very few years they will be equally good Canadian citizens with ourselves ; and we will not have to wait, one, two or three generations for the complete assimilation of these people.
Now, Sir, the main and most important question for these new settlers, and for the old settlers too, for that matter, is the question of transportation. To wliat end the raising of 200 million bushels of wheat in the west unless the farmers there can

get that wheat to market in reasonable time and at a reasonable expense to them ? And the very same remark applies to the mixed farmers of older Canada. These men must get their varied products to the seaboard quickly and Inexpensively, or forfeit the markets of Britain and Europe. Therefore it is with very great pleasure indeed that we heard the announcement in the Speech from the Throne, that the government of His Excellency will immediately appoint a transportation commission to deal with this very intricate question, for the purpose of its betterment.
I am very glad also that a reference has been made to the Militia Act. Framed in times long gone by, and under conditions totally dissimilar to those of the present day, the Militia Act was very unsatisfactory to the main body of the force to-day, and once more we are made to feel that the old dark days for the militiamen in this country are now gone by, and that at last parliament feels that it can deal without loss of dignity with matters pertaining to the active militia of Canada. For that, Mr. Speaker, I thank the Speech from the Throne.
As to the Railway Commission, that of course will be a permanent tribunal. The Railway Committee of the Privy Council has in times past given tolerable satisfaction; but so great is the increase in our commerce that the work thrown! upon that committee is altogether too much, even for their broad shoulders to carry. And so this commission should be appointed, following in this respect the example of other countries, of older countries, which have gone through similar commercial conditions.
Next, I come to a subject which I fear is a very debatable one, the subject of the Redistribution Bill. I hardly expect hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House to hail with joy the announcement of the advent of this measure. I feel that it would be impossible


Mr. MACLEAN.: Is it going to be fair ?


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: I was going to say that no matter how fair that measure may be, we can hardly hope to meet all the aspirations and longings of hon. gentlemen opposite, including the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean). Therefore I will say this much, at least, that I think the government surgeon will make the necessary amputations and ingraftments as painlessly as possible, and that, true to our Liberal conceptions, we will, as is our wont, try to remove the existing abuses without creating new ones. Further than that I cannot go.
The first reference in His Excellency's speech I had designedly left to the last, and that is the question of the general prosperity of Canada. I have done so be-


Andrew Thorburn Thompson: cause this subject is an extremely pleasant one to all good Canadians, to those both on the right and on the left of Mr. Speaker. First, I think I may say that for the bountiful harvests, for the peace within our borders, for the absence of disease and disaster already referred to, we desire with all reverence to thank the Giver of all good. But in honouring Divinity, let us not forget humanity. Let us remember that, prodigal as nature may be in its good gifts, these gifts may be wasted by a government inactive or slothful, or they may be taken the best advantage of by such a government as Canada is fortunately ruled by to-day. Take the question of mineral lands in the first place. ' How rich are the mineral resources of this country ? It is Providence that has hidden these riches in the bowels of the earth, but it is the government that has supplied the facilities for using these deposits to the very best advantage. Why, Sir, away up in the frozen Yukon-which, by the way, is now for the first time sending a representative to these legislative halls, a gentleman both able and affable-away up in the frozen Yukon, law and order are maintained as they have never been maintained before in a similar territory under similar conditions ; and for that we thank the government. The miner and his hard-earned gold are as safe in the streets of Dawson City as in any other part of the world. The same remark applies to the outlying camps in British Columbia and in New Ontario. More than this, not only has the government afforded protection to the miners in their industry, but it has helped them in another essential respect by reducing the prices of what they consume, and of the raw material that they use in their industry, by the improved tariff now prevailing. So we say that nature and the government are working hand in hand, the one supplying the ores and the other supplying the facilities.
Next we come to our forest resources. Who, a few years ago, was doing anything for the development of the pulp wood industry of Canada, an industry now running up into the hundreds of millions ? Our spruce forests are not necessarily a disappearing quantity, for the reason that this wood reproduces itself so rapidly that only thirty years have to elapse from seed time to harvest. With regard to lumbering proper, the magnificent prices recently received here in Ottawa for limits in this neighbourhood, are the very best gauge of the prosperity of this great Canadian industry.
The fisheries, Sir, have increased with everything else in Canada, but we cannot look forward to their increasing to the same extent as some other industries because they are very long established and they have been very successfully worked, but even if that is the case I am told that

we do not yet realize a fraction of Canada's wealth. We have our magnificent halibut beds, deposits, or banks-which shall I call them, I ask my friends from the sea-I suppose banks, recently discovered on the coast of British Columbia. We know that railways projected to .Tames Bay must soon be built and that when they are built these inland seas will be opened up by the enterprising fishermen of Canada. We know that James Bay and Hudson Bay have an area three times as great as the North Sea and from the North sea in Europe every year upwards of $150,000,000 is taken in fish. We do not know these inland seas as I hope some day we will know them, but we are informed that cod and other fish of value are found there and we hope very shortly to take more advantage of these great seas which we possess. The government have not been idle, for they have provided the fishermen with cold storage for their bait so that they may take advantage of the run of fish all through the year, where before they were only able to work a little more than half that time.
In matters of marine Canada is bound to be a great country because she has large inland and outland seas. Here again prosperity on the lakes is very marked and the Department of Marine and Fisheries are doing everything they can to promote it by improving the harbours and channels and providing better lighthouses and buoys. Coming to manufactures, while we must congratulate ourselves that in the six years from' 1891 to 1890 inclusive, the exports of Canada increased in all about $45,000,000, it is a matter for still greater congratulation that in the last six years they have increased by some $80,000,000. We have confidence in the ability of our captains of industry, in the intelligence and strength of the armies of workingmen whom they command, and so we say : On with the good work ; go forth and conquer the markets of the world as your British forebears have done in days gone by.
As to farming, which I have left to the last because it is the great basic industry of Canada, in Ontario alone a billion dollar trust, I may say in sincerity, being the representative of an agricultural constituency, that while my heart warms to all the toilers of Canada, it grows warmer still towards the farmers, the men who till the soil. What a splendid prospect is theirs ? It does one good to think of it. While the mortgages are going off the farms the bank barns are going on the farms, the savings bank deposits of the farmers are increasing, their houses are comfortably furnished, their children well educated, and we find prosperity everywhere-prosperity everywhere. i am free to confess that the bountiful crops of the past two years, added to a better knowledge of agricultural processes, have in a large measure been responsible for this improvement, but I assert
also that the destruction of the cattle embargo in connection with the trade of the United States and the better system of cold storage in connection with our trade with the mother country, have to a large extent supplemented nature in her bountiful gifts and have brought About this better state of things for the toilers of Canada. So, Sir, summarizing the whole matter, we come to this, that our policy after all may be summed up in a phrase now tolerably well known-' Canada for the Canadians,' not Canada for some Canadians, but Canada for all Canadians-Canada for the miner and the mariner, Canada for the fishermen and the lumbermen, Canada for the manufacturer and the farmer with special privileges to none and equal rights for all.
In conclusion, with no war clouds hanging on our boundaries, with no serious domestic questions of race and religion such as we find in the Balkan provinces threatening our domestic peace, with capital and colonists seeking us where before we were the seekers, with waters, mines, forests and farm producing abundantly, with a government strong and united, administering impartially the free institutions of a liberty-loving people, with a king wise and gracious, possessed of a prime minister loved and revered by half the people of Canada, and honoured by the whole, we may well say it is good to be a Canadian, for verily we have a land flowing with milk and honey, and our lines are fallen unto us In pleasant places.


Mr. L. P. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, to quote Monsabre, ' Harmony implies numbers ; by itself a note may be sound, it does not give harmony.' Hence that old-time usage which enables' me to repeat in my own tongue what mv friend, the hon. member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson) has so well expressed in his. While I appreciate the honour thus conferred on the constituency which I represent, I realize that the task entrusted to me is rather a difficult one for me to fulfil. I have accepted it, however, counting on the full measure of the indulgence which the House will grant. This, Canada's foremost assembly, should also! be the one nearest to perfection. Its members may and should differ as regards points of management, but they are all bound by the same fruitful love for the institutions which govern us.
A policy, to be considered good, need not be accepted by all-including the Opposition. If it were so, no policy could be called good. A good policy is one which ensures general prosperitv, and that we enjoy. It cannot be gainsaid that since 189G our economic conditions have steadily improved. To convince ourselves of the truth of this statement, we have only to consider for a moment the three phases of our industrial at-

tivity : Agriculture which supplies the raw material; manufactures, which transform it, and commerce, which distributes the goods.
And, first of all, let as take agriculture, undoubtedly the primary and most important of the sources of production. For several years past our farmers had been left in painfully straightened circumstances. Those whose property had so far escaped the bailiff's hand, were intent on giving up farms inadequate for the support of their families. The exports of agricultural products, which in 1878 amounted to $18,000,000 had fallen in 1896 to $14,000,000. Scarcely had the Liberals come into power than affairs took another turn ; exports of farm products increased, reaching in the course of the last fiscal year the sum of $37,000,000.
Then, the manufacturing industries, whose ruin had been predicted, found a wider outlet in the home markets, while their exports rose from $9,000,000 in 1896 to 818,900,000.
Internal trade was in a bad way, as evidenced by the number of failures reported ; it is now once more sound and flourishing. Transportation facilities have become inadequate for the requirements of our trade. Shares of our large transportation companies are sold at a premium on the stock exchanges of the world.
As a last result, our export and import trade which, in 1896, aggregated $239,000,000, reached in 1902 the figure of $423,000,000, an increase of $184,000,000 in the course of the six years of Liberal rule, while for the eighteen years of Conservative rule, the outside trade had increased by only $67,000,-
000.
Last of all, by virtue of the principle that thrift engenders riches and plenty, the putting into operation of all the country's resources, coupled with good business management, has brought about an era of unprecedented prosperity and enabled our Finance Minister to announce each year a handsome surplus.
For that prosperity, we should thank Providence ; without its help, our efforts would have been of no avail. It is a principle which the Opposition have deeply impressed on their minds. However, I fear they are going too far when they endeavour to show that it is solely through Providence, independently of human effort, that these results have been achieved. They who so often taunt the government on account of short memory, forget that in 1877, when this country, like many others, was undergoing a severe economic crisis, the Conservative party took occasion of the condition of affairs to call for a change of rule. They forget also that 1897, when the present tariff went into force, they predicted the direst calamities as the outcome of it.
I do not mean to say, however, that in the mind of the Liberal party, all things are at their best, and that it only remains for the government to rest on its laurels.
Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville!.
Certainly not. We know that dormant waters breed death, and it is only by incessant tossing that the waters of great rivers retain their sweetness and freshness. Our efforts, then, should tend unsparingly to perfect the work without altering the substance. As the ancients said : ' Motus alit, non mutat opus.' The changes or reforms which it would be desirable to bring about are numerous.
The face of our western country is rapidly changing. It is being invaded by a throng of European settlers, and-a fact which should be a matter of congratulation to us- the great neighbouring republic which for so many years boasted of annexing us piecemeal, is now sending to our country thousands of settlers who take over with them some capital and the help of their strong arms.
The sudden increase in the output of farm products explains the inability of railways and inland navigation companies to keep up with the requirements of the trade. The providing of new transportation facilities for the purpose of handling our surplus production and at the same time opening up new: districts, is one of the features of the government's programme.
Transportation agencies lose much of their usefulness if they do not provide the service which is wanted or if they exact exorbitant rates. The public will learn with gratification that a railway commission has been constituted, which, it is hoped,' will remove all grievances in that connection.
These transportation facilities having been provided in the public interest should be available at alll times. Labour disputes in connection with the operating of railways are of interest not only to the shareholders and employees of such railway companies, but to the general public as well. In order that business be not brought to a standstill, it is necessary that the government should provide some reliable system of arbitration.
Then, again, as a member from the district of Montreal I am gratified to learn that the Department of Marine and Fisheries is to be re-organized. The present government has done a great deal to improve the Montreal harbour. They realized that from the very nature of things, Montreal is Canada's seaport. Situated as it is at the outlet of the great lakes, at the innermost point that can be reached by sea-faring vessels, it is the meeting place of merchants from all parts of the world. I am confident the House will be willing to allow the Marine Department to exercise more complete control over our harbour and the great natural highway leading to it.
However satisfactory the state of our internal affairs, we should not lose sight of those international questions which concern us. The most important is, no doubt, the Alaskan boundary question. When, in 1807. Russia agreed to give away to the United

States that vast territory of Alaska for 37,000,000 francs, people in Europe wondered what could have induced such action. ' The explanation offered, says ElisSe Reclus, was the desire on the part of Russia, then unfriendly to Great Britain, to show her sympathy for the United States, and to lay the foundation for future strife between two neighbouring states.' Two serious disputes have already arisen out of this cession : One relative to the Behring sea fisheries, lias been, fortunately, settled ; the other, relative1, to the boundaries, is now pending.
1 am sure the House has learned with satisfaction that a treaty had been signed having for its object the settlement of this dispute. Statements have appeared in the newspapers to the effect that the treaty was one-sided, but no evidence has been furnished to support these statements. It has been said that the treaty had not been passed in good faith on the part either of the United States or of the mother country ; that in virtue of a secret understanding, the jurists appointed by the United States were not to render any decision contrary to the interests of their own country, while the representatives of Great Britain were to concede everything. However, the provisions of the treaty, as I read them, seem to exclude the possibility of such an understanding. By submitting the question to three jurists from each country who are bound under oath to give their decision in accordance with the facts, neither of the contracting parties could have in mind to deceive the public. To make such a supposition is gratuitously to insult two great nations. ' Why should they resort to such shameless trickery, the result of which would be to debase them both In the eyes of the world, as well as the members of the court appointed by them? Could they not have resorted to arbitration ? Secret instructions may) be given to arbitrators, not to jurists. Such are the reasons which make me believe that the treaty was initiated in good faith. Bet us hope that it will be carried out in the same spirit. Bet us hope that the press in both countries will show a spirit of fairness and refrain from any attempt at influencing the court.
The hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) who takes special interest in military matters, has recalled an event which has been a cause of rejoicing throughout the country. I refer to the happy termination of the war in South Africa. The best minds were at variance as regards the justice of this war, a point which future generations will be in a better position to decide than we. However, the terms of peace, in the opinion of all, have been such as the world would expect the victor to grant to a courageous foe. The time is no longer when the conqueror could haughtily proclaim :	' Vue victis.' The enemy who
has laid down arms is entitled not only to life, but to all that makes life worth living,
that is to say, honour and liberty. By doing homage to a fallen foe, by pardoniug generously, by closing its ears to suggestions of vengeance and listening only to the voice of mercy, Great Britain has at once regained the sympathy which she had lost at the outset of hostilities ; so true is it that justice elevates nations.
That generous treaty was the forerunner of an event equally .glorious. I mean the coronation of His Majesty King Edward VII. In congregating so readily to witness this great celebration, British subjects realized that it was not so much the apotheosis of one man for whom they have the greatest admiration, they saw in it the bright symbol of the union which is to bind the king with the nation. Indeed, when the king appeared before his people in Westminster Abbey and was met by that loud acclamation : God Save King Edward, a new compact was entered into. On the one hand there was the king pledging himself tot observe the usages of the kingdom ; on the other, there was the people of Great Britain renewing their faith in her governmental institutions ; there was the people living in the colonies, proud of the liberty and self-government which they enjoy, asserting their loyalty to the British flag. Whatever was of a nature to enhance the friendly relations existing between the colonies and the mother country and between the various colonies, was a thing to be fostered. Whatever would alter the nature of these relations, was; a thing to be avoided. Our government understood it so. More than once it had proven its devotion to the mother land ; but at the same time as it accepted the invitation to take part in the Colonial Conference, it refused to discuss the question of contribution to_ the war expenditure of the empire, making clear its determination not to render compulsory deeds which had been accomplished voluntarily. That decision had been made known to the House at the preceding session and no exception had been found to it. Had we consented to share in the wars of the empire, our political future would have been jeopardized. Practically it would have been handing back to the authorities in Downing street the privileges which half a century of struggles have won for us. The wars which England is constantly waging in>
her various colonies do not concern us directly. We have nothing to do with the government of these colonies, neither are they governed on our account. Nothing could be more in contradiction with the principles of our government than for us to undertake to meet an expenditure to which we have not been called to give our assent. George III. lost his American colonies for having ignored this principle. An ill-fated day it would be when Great Britain would compel us to share in the expenditure incurred in her wars of expansion. British connection would thus become too burden

some and would inevitably be severed before long.
I understand that for the Britisher, who has been only a few years in America, the interests of England remain paramount. But for the great majority of our people, for those whose ancestors opened up the country, for those who can say like the Roman orator ' Here are the footprints of my forefathers,' in a word, for the Canadian-born, whatever their origin, while their loyalty is assured to England, their energy, their prospects, their feeling all centre in Canada, their home their native country.
Suoli are, Mr. Speaker, the sentiments which the eloquent spokesman of Canada, the lion the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Eaurier) expressed at the conference. Unfortunately the weariness of a long journey across the sea had impaired his precious health. I am sure I am voicing the feelings of my colleagues on both sides of the House u 'lien I say that the whole country, made anxious by the news of his failing strength, rejoices now to find him restored to health and capable of resuming the management of public affairs.
I have then much pleasure in seconding tlie motion of the hon. member for I-Ialdi-rnand (Mr. Thompson).


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, let me, in the first place extend the congratulations of myself and my friends to the right hon. the Prime Minister on his restoration to health. We are very glad indeed to know that his trip to the south has resulted in so very great an improvement to his physical condition, which was somewhat impaired by the toils, and I suppose also by the festivities, which he had to undergo during the past summer. I may say to you, Sir, and to the right hon. gentleman and his friends, that, however, sharp our political differences may be, no one will rejoice more heartily than my friends and myself at the good news that has come to us of the right hon. gentleman's improvement in health.
Det me also, Mr. Speaker, congratulate the mover and seconder of the address on the very eloquent speeches which they have delivered this afternoon. My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson), always speaks well, and this afternoon he was even more eloquent than usual. I do not know quite, to what an extent he was willing to attribute to the present government the fact that we have been free from volcanoes and cyclones in this country during the past year, but I suppose it would be only in line with certain arguments which we hear on the public platform had he announced that our immunity from these evils has been to some extent at least due to the fact that there is a Liberal government in power in this country. I notice that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), whom I had the pleasure Mr. DEMERS (St. John and Iberville).
of meeting on certain public platforms recently-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Robert Laird Borden: Yes, it is always a pleasure to meet my hon. friend the Minister of Customs. The hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) was inclined to give to a certain extent some credit to Providence for our prosperity, but I notice that he put the government a long way ahead, and Providence as a very bad second.
My hon. friend the mover of the address, referred to certain losses which this House sustained during the past year. I think we have to mourn the absence of four members, one on this side of the House and three on the other. My friend, the late Angus McLeod, who has been cut off in the prime of life, was a man who, while he did not take a very prominent part in the debates of the House, held a very high position in the business community of this country, and I believe he had the respect and esteem of every man on both sides of the House. The same is true of my late friend Dr. Horsey ; a gentleman who gave promise of very great ability in public life ; a gentleman who was cut off by a most unfortunate accident in the very prime of manhood, and whose death we on this side of the House deplore as much as our friends opposite. The revered figure of the late Dr. Christie is now missed from amongst us. He was a gentleman whose presence in this House dated from a very long time ago ; a gentleman who was honoured and respected on both sides of the House, and a gentleman whose loss I am sure we all deplore. The fourth hon. member whose absence we have to mourn is Mr. Maxwell, the late member for Burrard. My own personal acquaintance with Mr. Maxwell was not very great, but I am sure that his loss will be felt by the House as a whole and especially by my friends on the other side.
Now Mr. Speaker, with regard to the speech which has been placed in the mouth of His Excellency, I would like to call the attention of my right hon. friend the Prime Minister to the fact that there is no reference in that speech to a matter which was considered worthy of mention in the speech of last year. I refer to the proposed conference-not the colonial conference-but the proposed conference between the representatives of the government of this country and the governments of Australia and New Zealand. The speech of last year read as follows :-
I have also pleasure In informing you that the government of Australia and New Zealand have accepted an invitation from my government to attend a conference in London next June for the consideration of trade, transportation, cable and other matters of intercolonial concern, and it is hoped that the meeting may lead to an extension of Canadian trade with
26

those important portions of His Majesty's dominions.
I gather that that refers to an entirely distinct meeting from the colonial conference which had been summoned by the right hon. Mr. Chamberlain ; and I would like to ask the Prime Minister to state whether or not the expectations which were held out in the speech from the Throne last year have been in any way realized, and whether or not any progress has been made in these important matters as a result of that invitation which was extended by this government to the governments of the other colonies which I have named.
As to the colonial conference which has been held during last summer, that indeed, as my hon. friend from Haldimand has said, was an important gathering. I have examined with some interest the report of that conference which has been issued by the imperial government, and I am a little surprised to find that in respect to 23 subjects and motions which were made before that conference either by representatives of the imperial government or of the colonies, Canada took the initiative in not one. It does seem strange that the representatives of this country, the greatest colony of the empire, should sit supine while these matters were being brought to the attention of the whole world ; should not have a single suggestion to make, not one motion to put forward with regard to the very important subjects which were brought to the attention of the empire and of the world at that meeting. I may say that the only motion made by Canada at that conference was a formal vote of thanks to the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain at its close, moved by the Prime Minister of Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, this conference has a very important place, not only in the history of Canada but of the empire, and I desire to express my regret that it has been so barren of results in regard to matters in which Canada is deeply interested. In the first place, if there is one subject more than another which it was important to discuss at such a conference, it is the question of preferential trade within the empire. We all know the history of that question in this country. We all know that the Conservative party, as far back as 1892, brought a motion forward in this House affirming the advantages of mutual trade preferences between the mother country and the different parts of the empire. We know the stand which my hon. friends opposite took on that occasion, and we know the stand that was subsequently taken by the party of which the right hon. gentleman is and was then leader. In 1896 the right hon. Prime Minister, speaking for his party, or rather the party speaking through him, told the people of this country that they were as much in favour of preferential trade within the empire as was the Conservative party; and the Liberal party at that
time promised to the country, through my right hon. friend, that if they were returned to power they could do as much, and would do every thing that they could to bring about the consummation of that great idea. Well, Sir, what happened? My right hon. friend went to London in 1897, and the government of Canada, speaking through him, told the people of the mother country that Canada did not want any preference in the markets of the mother country. The government is responsible for these utterances, and it is against the government that I now bring this charge. But that is not the last of it. After the Prime Minister had spoken on that occasion, one leading English statesman said that the idea of preferential trade within the empire or of an imperial zollver-ein was to be approached with all the reverence due to a corpse. Another great English statesman said that after Sir Wilfrid Laurier's utterances he would not touch the question even with a pair of tongs. The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher), speaking in Great Britain in 1901, repeated the statement made by the Prime Minister in 1897. And last year, when food products were for the first time in many years taxed by the imperial parliament, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked whether or not it was proposed to exempt Canada either wholly or partially from the operation of this tax. The gentleman who propounded that inquiry was told by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that Canada was not to be exempted because Canada did not desire any exemption. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has a record on this also. My hon. friend caused himself to be interviewed on this subject at a time when Sir Charles Tupper was propounding the idea throughout Canada that a preference of this kind might be obtained, to the great advantage of Canada, and that all Canadians should join together for the purpose of bringing it about, if possible ; and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance expressed himself in that interview as follows
There are three points which Sir Charles Tupper would like to make, but in not one of them is there any foundation for his efforts. He continues to talk about the Conservative party obtaining a tariff preference for Canadian products in England ; that is to say that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign foodstuffs while admitting those of Canada free. This is an old cry with Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.
Everybody who has had a correct view of English public opinion has .been and is still aware that such tariff legislation in Great Britain for the present or the early future is Impossible.
Why, within a few months, or within a year at least, after that, the imperial government had done the very thing which my hon. friend said was arrant humbug ; and within eighteen months after that, my hon. friend with his leader in London, was

asking the imperial government to adopt that very policy. That does not seem to exhibit a very great degree of foresight on the part of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. The speeches which were made by the colonial representatives at the Colonial Conference have not been published. It has been said by a member of the imperial government that they were suppressed at the suggestion of the colonial representatives. Might I ask my right hon. friend whether or not the Canadian representatives made any suggestion looking to the suppression of their speeches ? It would have been very interesting indeed to know what was the attitude of the Canadian representatives at that conference. How does my right hon. friend explain the fact that the Canadian representatives at the imperial conference adopted a policy with regard to this matter which had been urged upon this House time after time by the Liberal Conservative party, and which this government had called upon its followers to vote down over and over again ? In the session of 1900 Sir Charles Tupper moved a resolution in this House to the effect that Canada would never be satisfied with any policy short of one giving mutual trade preferences throughout the empire. That was voted down by our hon. friends opposite ; and when we proposed a similar resolution in 1901, and again in 1902, it met with exactly the same fate. But let use see what the representatives of Canada themselves proposed at that colonial conference. The report of the conference, at pages 37 and 38, contains the following language, out of the mouths of the Canadian ministers who were present:
Meanwhile the Canadian ministers determined to present to the conference a resolution affirming the principle of preferential trade, and the desirability of its adoption by the colonies generally, and also expressing the opinion of the Prime Ministers of the colonies that His Majesty's government should reciprocate by granting preferential terms to the products of the colonies in the markets of the mother country.
After calling upon their followers in the House to vote down the proposals made by us in 1900, in 1901, and again in 1902, they go to this colonial conference, and propose the very thing they had voted down and derided as a humbug. How did my hon. friend expect to get a preference from the imperial government after telling them in 1897 that we had given our preference to the mother country in return for the splendid freedom bestowed on Canada. How could we consistently, as I pointed out last year, go to the colonial conference and ask for a preference for Canada in the markets of the mother country after we had told the people of the mother country in 1897 that Canada wanted nothing in return for the preference we had given, because it had been given in return for the splendid freedom bestowed upon us. But I will con-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
tinue to quote the expressions which the Canadian ministers put forth at that conference :
The Canadian ministers desire it to be understood that they took this course with the strong hope and the expectation that the principle of preferential trade would be more widely accepted by the colonies and that the mother country would at an early day apply the same principle by exempting the products of the colonies from customs duties. If, after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally or to the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.
Wbat is the meaning of the covert threat contained in the last sentence ? Will my right hon. friend, when he rises to address the House, or the Minister of Finance, if he speaks on this motion, tell us what is the meaning of this language ? We have been held up to derision and scorn in this House because we attacked the policy of granting a preference to the mother country without asking that there should be a preference to us in return. We have said that that preference should not have been given in pretended return for our freedom, that negotiations should have been carried on for a mutual trade preference throughout the empire, and that all our efforts should have been directed to that end, so that the whole empire, and Canada itself might in that way be strengthened. The jeers and scorn seem to belong rather to our hon. friends on the other side of the House at present.
If, after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle or preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions.
That means, if it means anything, that the Canadian government, after telling the people of the mother country that they did not want any preference in the markets of the mother country, have now come to the conclusion that they do want a preference, and, wanting that preference, they threaten the mother country with a repeal of the British preference unless a corresponding preference in the markets of the mother country shall be afforded Canada. It means that if it means anything ; and if it does not mean that, I will be glad if my right hon. friend, when he rises to speak, would be good enough to inform the House and the country just what that sentence is Intended to convey to the people of the mother country on behalf of the people of Canada.
There is another matter connected with the colonial conference on which we would like to have a little information from the

government, and that information we think we are entitled to. The President of the Board of Trade held certain conferences with the Canadian representatives, and at page 35 of the colonial conference report, we find this :
The result of the informal meetings with the President of the Board of Trade are set forth in the following memorandum :-
As a result of the communications which have taken place, it is understood that the representatives of the colonies hereinafter mentioned are prepared to recommend to their respective parliaments preferential treatment of British goods on the following lines :-
Canada : The existing preference on lists of cent and an additional preference on lists of selected articles

(a)	By further reducing the duties in favour of the United Kingdom ;
(b)	By raising duties against foreign imports ;
(c)	By imposing duties on certain foreign Imports now on the free list.
That is merely a recommendation by the Canadian representatives to the Canadian government. We would like, and I think the country would also like to be informed, whether or not that suggestion has been acquiesced in by the government of this country, and whether we are to expect that that policy will be carried out by Canada ; whether oi; not it will be carried out without any corresponding preference to the products of Canada in the markets of the mother country, or whether it will only be carried out by Canada on the exemption by the mother country of Canadian food products from the tax which has recently been imposed.
There is another matter, Mr. Speaker, upon which X would like to say a word. We know that during the last three or four years Canada has been subjected to a discrimination by the German empire. We know that the German empire has imposed upon Canada a maximum tariff, while she accords to all other portions of the empire and to the United States of America her minimum tariff. This matter has been discussed more than once in the House ; it has been brought to the attention of the government and my hon. friend the Minister of Finance took the position of almost justifying the action of the German government when the matter was brought up by my hon. friend from Pictou some two years ago. We have pointed out to the House and the country that this discrimination is unfair to Canada, because it is a discrimination imposed, according to the expressed words of the German chancellor, because Canada has granted a preference to the mother country. We have also pointed out to the House and the country on more than one occasion that German goods have been coming to Canada under this British preference with very little value added to them in the British islands. As a matter of fact, under the Customs regulations which were read to this
House by my hon. friend from Toronto last year, all that is necessary is to change the label on the goods and add a profit, and then they come to Canada as British goods.
On the one hand we have Germany discriminating against Canada, and ou the other hand, we have Germany getting the advantages of the preferential tariff. Now, a very important statement was made, and apparently acquiesced in by the Canadian representatives at this political conference, and I will read it to my right hon. friend and ask him whether or not the Canadian government acquiesced in that statement, and. if so, whether it is the view which his government entertains:
In connection with the discussion of preferential trade, the conference also considered the point raised by the Commonwealth government as to the possibilities of the colonies losing most-favoured nation treatment in foreign countries in the event of their giving a tariff preference to British goods. As, however, the exports from the colonies to foreign countries are almost exclusively articles of food or raw materials for various industries, the possibilities of discrimination against them in foreign markets was not regarded as serious, and as the exports from foreign countries to the colonies are mainly manufactured articles it is recognized that if such discriminations should take place the colonies had an effective remedy in their own hands.
Thus my right hon. friend and his colleagues have acquiesced in a statement that with regard to this German discrimination we have an effective remedy in our own hands. During the past three or four years we on this side have pointed out to the government that we have in our own hands an effective remedy. In 1891 we moved a resolution which pointed out that the government of this country had an effective remedy in then- own hands, and that resolution was voted down by my hon. friends opposite and no action has since been taken by this government. Neither have we information whether they ever made any protest with regard to this treatment, and I desire now to point out to my right hon. friend that according to the view acquiesced in apparently by himself and colleagues at the colonial conference, this government has the remedy in its own hands, yet it hesitates to apply it. It suffers German goods to come into Canada by the hundreds of thousands of dollars under the British preference, and at the same time suffers Canadian products to go into Germany under the maximum tariff, while goods from all the rest of the empire and the United States go into that country freely under the lower or minimum tariff.
There is one other matter in connection with the colonial conference on which I would like to say a word. The colony of Newfoundland, immediately after the conclusion of that conference, was permitted to enter into negotiations with the United States for the making of a treaty, very

similar in its terms to wliat was known years ago as the Blain-Bond treaty-a treaty under which, I venture to say, the interests of Canada would be very much prejudiced if it should come into operation. I would like to know from the right hon. gentleman what is the view of his government with regard to that. We know that when the Blain-Bond treaty was proposed, there was a strong protest against it sent from Canada to the mother country, on account of which further negotiations were stayed for the time being. Has this government taken any similar steps with regard to the present treaty? If not, does it propose to take any such steps. I think that the government might very much better occupy itself at present in negotiating with Newfoundland for the purpose of rounding off the Dominion hy securing the entrance of Newfoundland into our confederation than in idle negotiations with the United States. That colony has important trade relations with many parts of Canada-not only the maritime provinces, but Quebec and Ontario as well. I believe that an arrangement could be made between Canada and Newfoundland which would be for the benefit of both countries, and I would like to see the government beginning those negotiations; and as a preliminary, I think that the government might very well enter into negotiations with the imperial authorities for the purpose of obtaining some honourable settlement of the difficulty known as the French shore question. Canada is interested in that question almost as much as Newfoundland. Canada would be specially interested if Newfoundland would become part of our confederation, and I hope to see that island enter the Dominion before many years. We on this side will give the government our cordial support in any movement to that end, and I hope that this government will take the initiative for the purpose of having this difficulty removed so that the island may enter confederation unhampered by any such difficulty as now unfortunately prevails on its western coast. I do trust that my right hon. friend will be able to give us some information with regard to that particular question, and to assure the House that the government is alive to the advantages which would accrue both to Canada and to Newfoundland by that island becoming a part of this Dominion.
My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has referred to the Alaskan boundary question. In common with every member of this House, I regret the position in which that matter stands at present. The attitude of this government upon it has been somewhat remarkable. Last year we submitted a motion for the purpose of bringing before the House and the country the papers relating to the abrogation of the Bulwer-Clayton treaty, and the government took the ground that Canada had no direct interest in the proposed canal across from
the Nicaraguan peninsula. My right hon. friend said that Canada had no direct interest in the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty or in the construction of the Nicaraguan canal-that she had no more interest in that canal than she had in the treaty affecting the Suez canal or in any other treaty between Great Britain and a foreign power. I take issue with my right hon. friend. I say that Canada had a direct interest in the abrogation of that treaty. What interest has the United States in the Nicaraguan canal ? She has the interest of her possessions on the Atlantic and Pacific and of the share which she expects to have in the future great trade with the Orient. I leave it to every hon. member whether Canada has not precisely the same interest in that Nicaraguan canal as has the United States. Our interests may be of a lesser degree, but we have great possessions on the Atlantic and the Pacific and we hope to get some share in the great trade of the Orient in the future. I know of no portion of the empire which has a greater interest in this canal and in the abrogation of the Bulwer-Clayton treaty than we have. The attitude taken by my right hon. friend was not that of Lord Lansdowne because in a dispatch to the British ambassador at Washington in 1901, Lord Lansdowne referred to the interests of Great Britain in this Nicaraguan canal and in the Clayton-Bulwer treaty by reason of her enormous possessions on the continent of America. The further language of Lord Lansdowne was quoted in the House last year. Lord Lansdowne said :
Shortly afterwards Lord Hersehell intimated that the difficulties with regard to the question of the Alaskan boundary seemed insuperable and he feared it might he necessary to break off the negotiations^of which he hitherto had the charge. Upon this Lord Salisbury informed Mr. White that he did_ not see how Her Majesty's government could sanction any convention for amending the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, as the opinion of this country would hardly support them in making a concession which would be wholly to the benefit of the United States, at a time when they appeared to be so little inclined to come to a satisfactory settlement in regard to the Alaskan frontier.
My hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean) brought that to the attention of the government last year. And these are very significant words indeed. Apparently, at that time, the British government had taken a stand that it would not be a proper thing to abrogate the Clayton-Bulwer treaty without making some provision for the settlement of the Alaskan boundary. Now, I think it is due to the House and to the country that my right hon. friend should state frankly the influences, if there were influences, which led to that change of attitude on the part of t'he British government. And he should also, and more especially, tell the people of this country whether that change of at-


Robert Laird Borden: titode took place with the consent and concurrence of the government of Canada. I would not have brought myself to believe that the Canadian government had concurred, if it had not been for the language of my right hon. friend speaking for his government, which seemed to indicate that in his opinion Canada had no direct interest in the abrogation of the treaty or in the Nicaraguan canal. It may be that this government has concurred in the abrogation of that treaty without provision for the delimitation of the Alaskan boundary. All I can say is that, if the government has taken that attitude, I believe it merits the censure and condemnation of every truehearted and loyal Canadian for so doing.
What is the position of affairs ? The position is that Great Britain has made a treaty with the United States of America for the submission to six impartial jurists of the question of the position of the Alaskan frontier ; three of these impartial jurists to be appointed by Great Britain and three to be appointed by the United States. Well, does my right hon. friend, or does his government, expect that there will be a verdict either one way or the other from a majority of these impartial jurists ? What was the idea of the government on that point when it consented to this treaty ? For I suppose that this treaty, which affects the boundary of Canada, was not made without the consent of the Canadian government. It is true it does not contain the provisions of the Washington treaty which make it necessary that it should be submitted to the parliament of Canada before it comes into force. ; Probably my right hon. friend will explain why that provision was not contained in the treaty which has just been made between Great Britain and the United States. The government have seen fit to make this treaty-it was made by the imperial government presumably with the concurrence of the Canadian government- but it is made without any reference to the parliament of Canada, and this parliament is helpless to touch the question one way or the other now that the treaty has been made.
Well, we have these impartial jurists to deal with this matter. And does my right hon. friend feel satisfied with the selection which has been made by the United States of America ? It seems to me that the situation is rather an extraordinary one. I do not know, personally, anything about the three gentlemen who have been selected by the government of the United States; but I have a number of quotations from leading journals of that country which point out the fact that these gentlemen have, or at least two of them, prejudged the case. For example, the Detroit ' Tribune ' says that the subsidence of opposition to the Alaskan treaty in the Senate is explained by the fact that word was 2
secretly passed around who the American members of the commission would be, and the announcement of the names was a sufficient guarantee that, no matter what the Canadian case was, there was not the least danger that Uncle Sam would lose anything. This newspaper, the Detroit ' Tribune ' also says :
It may he assumed without the slightest hesitation that the convictions of these two gentlemen-(Lodge and Turner)-have been formed in advance and irrevocably. ... If Secretary Root were to show any disposition to weaken or compromise they would doubtless break up the conference in a row before anything could be lost or gained.
That is the view which an important journal in the United States takes of the situation. Now, one of these gentlemen, Senator Lodge, a very prominent gentleman in the United States, is quoted in a public journal as having spoken as follows :
The negotiations failed because Canada made claims in regard to the Alaskan boundary which the United States could not accept and which no nation with an ounce of self respect could have admitted. . . In 1867 we bought Alaska and the Russian title vested in us. For seventy years, in round numbers, that title was never questioned. Then gold was discovered. Then England set up a claim in complete contradiction to the treaty of 1825 which had been recognized for seventy years, and a more manufactured and baseless claim was never set up. If we should yield to it there is not a portion of our northern boundary which England could not attack. . . When an attempt was made to revive negotiations last spring, Canada came forward again with her Alaskan claim and President Roosevelt refused to recognize it, as any patriotic American would.
. . . No nation can afford to surrender its territory on baseless claims.
Does my right hon. friend regard that as the language of an 'impartial jurist' about to pass on this question between Canada and the United States ? Then the Minneapolis ' Tribune,' another leading journal of the United States, said :
Secretary Root and Senator Lodge are men' of high character, but they are not exactly the eminent and impartial jurists contemplated by the treaty. Besides they are connected with the government in such a way as almost inevitably to make them strong partisans of its case. Senator Turner is not even a man of high public character. .	. Besides
as a border senator, he is committed to the most extreme American interpretation.
And the Brooklyn ' Eagle,' in the forcible language which is sometimes found even In leading American journals expresses its view in this way :
The chances of convincing American jurists of the rightfulness of Canada's claims are about the same as the prospects of a thaw in Hades.
The New York ' Commercial Advertiser ' says :
Secretary Root and Senator Lodge have been stubborn in believing that Great Britain has
revised edition

no reasonable grounds for claiming under the treaty between Russia and JJreat Britain any territory other than has been conceded all along. Senator Turner comes from the extreme north-western state where the feeling against yielding any Alaskan territory has always been stronger than in any other part of the United States.
The ' Literary Digest ' says :
As there is no seventh commissioner, a deadlock is regarded as almost certain in which case the boundary will remain, until further negotiations, where it now is, and it now is pretty near where the United States claims it ought to be.
The New York ' Evening Post ' says :
Mr. Root and Senator Turner and even more. Senator Lodge, lack judicial quality in all this Alaskan dispute. All three in time past have committed themselves unequivocally against the Canadian contention.
We believe that it would be a very fortunate occurrence should trifling indisposition or press of other duties require the resignation of Senator Lodge and permit the appointment of an expert historical geographer.
The New York correspondent of the London ' Times ' says :
If he (Lord Lansdowne) has conceded anything he has conceded it with the full consent of Canada, nay upon her urgency, and Canadian views have always had weight, perhaps too much weight, with the British Foreign Office, on purely Canadian questions.
Now, the question is, what do the government .propose to do after they have got the matter into this muddle? Why did they not in the first place take a firm stand as Canadian governments in days gone by have taken, and insist that the Clayton-Bulwer treaty in which we were interested-because we are interested in the Nicaraguan canal-should not be abrogated until some fair settlement had been made, or at least, until some fair means of settlement had been found for the delimitation of the Alaskan boundary ? Why did the government not take that stand ? I cannot believe that if the government had taken that stand the treaty would ever have been abrogated as it was. The right hon. gentleman, however, will correct me on that point. But now that a reference has been made of the Alaskan boundary question to six men, what are we to do about it ? Does the government propose to concur in the appointment of British arbitrators at all ? I venture to suggest to the government of my right hon. friend that that may be a question for serious consideration. If we appoint the arbitrators we know pretty well what the result will be. The very best that we can hope for is an even division, but an even division will leave matters exactly as they are at present, with the United States in possession of the disputed territory, and will leave them in even a stronger position than they are at present, because they will be able to say that the matter had been referred Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
to a tribunal which was unable to determine whether the present boundary was right or wrong. But of one thing I am absolutely certain, and that is that if Canada or the mother country do appoint arbitrators-and I doubt the expediency of their doing so under present conditions-they should not follow the example of the United States in this regard. If we appoint any one we should appoint men wlfo can be fairly and honestly classed as impartial jurists. The fact that the United States have appointed men who do not seem to us to come within that category, is no reason why we should follow their example, because by doing so we would condone the course of the United States in the appointment of its arbitrators, and would place ourselves in the same position the United States occupies.
Now I think that the government of this country might at least have done one thing in regard to this matter which they have failed to do, and that is to take some effectual means of informing public opinion in the United States on this question. One reason why we have had so much difficulty in getting any reasonable settlement with the United States is that nearly everybody in that country believes that this is merely a trumped up claim on the part of Canada. Why did not the government of this country take some effectual means of informing public opinion in the United States with regard to this matter ? They have taken a great deal of pains in proclaiming their political propaganda in our own country. If some of that energy had been devoted to making known the Canadian case through the leading journals of the United States, it might have been possible for us to make a better arrangement with the government of that country than we have been able to do. I regret the condition in which this matter stands at the present time. Whatever course the government proposes to take in the interests of Canada, even in the hopeless condition in which the matter finds itself at present, we will give them our cordial support. Upon a question of this kind the whole country should be united; and if the government, by means of a resolution of this House, or by any other means, desires to have its hands strengthened, even at this unfortunate stage of the negotiations, I am sure that I can say on behalf of every man on this side of the House that we are prepared cordially to sustain the government in any such course.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have not much more to add. Reference has been made, in the proceedings of the colonial conference, to a proposal by the Canadian government to establish a local naval force. It is not necessary for me to read the quotations; my right hon. friend no doubt recollects what the proposal was. No reference whatever is made to that in the speech

from the Throne. I would think it of sufficient importance to have merited a mention in the speech. Would my right hon. friend, in addressing himself to the House, be good enough to give us any information which he may think proper to give at the present time in regard to that matter, so that we may know what we have to expect.
Reference is also made in the speech from the Throne to the question of transportation, and to the fact that there has been a great influx of population into our north-western territories. I visited portions of the North-west during the past autumn, and I was very glad indeed to know that we are receiving a great immigration from the United States of America. We are all delighted to see that immigration taking place. Those people who are coming into that country are good citizens. They are, as the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has said, people accustomed to govern themselves, people to whom representative institutions are no new thing. I am not at all afraid of the influx of these men to the North-west. I am very glad indeed that they are coming in great numbers, and I hope that their numbers will be increased during the coming year. I hope also that the government will take into early consideration the question of granting provincial autonomy to those great territories in the North-west. Those territories are filling up rapidly, the people are all accustomed to representative institutions, and a great many of them, at least, feel very keenly now that they have not the complete rights of self-government which have been conferred on the people of the other provinces. I regret that no mention of this important question has been made in the speech from the Throne. I know that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior entertains the view that it is not wise at the present time to deal with the question. I do not agree with him, I do not agree with the reasons which he has stated, I do not see any force in those reasons. I hope and trust that notwithstanding the absence of any mention of this subject in the speech from the Throne, the government will upon reconsideration bring in a Bill during the present session for the purpose of conferring complete rights of selfgovernment upon the people of the Northwest Territories.
But, in regard to the question of transportation, which is one of very great importance, I find that these words have been placed in the speech from the Throne, in the mouth of His Excellency :
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
We will be glad to know what is the real significance of these words. Those of us 2i
who follow the trend of public affairs in the newspapers know that proposals will be made during the present session for charters to build transcontinental railways and it is also said that applications Will be made to the government for subsidies, or other assistance, to aid in the building of these railways. I would like to ask my right hon. friend, what is the significance of these words. Do they mean that the question of these charters is to be referred to the commission; do they mean that the question of the subsidies or other assistance to these railways is to be referred to a commission? If that is not the significance of the language which has been used we would be very glad indeed to know what scope these words have and what is the purport of the measure that is to be brought before the House in that regard.
I suppose it could not be expected that we should have any reference to the tariff in the speech from the Throne, but I may say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we recall the fact that during the past session the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) practically announced to the House and to the country that there would be a revision of the tariff at an early day. I am not placing my own interpretation on his words because the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver), speaking afterwards in the same debate said that the speech of the hon. Minister of Finance was a clear warning to every free trader in the country that the tariff would be revised and that the tariff would be raised. Certain events have transpired since then to which I need not refer, but which are intimately connected with fiscal questions. If my right hon. friend would give us any idea as to whether or not the language of the hon. Minister of Finance in his budget speech last year is to be taken seriously, and is to be regarded as an announcement to the country that a revision will be made during the present session, we would be very glad to hear from the right hon. leader of the government on that point. A great deal of the prosperity-of the alleged prosperity -of this country is based upon the fact that our trade has increased. While our trade has very greatly increased since 1896, so has the trade of every portion of the world. I have the Agues before me and could give them at the present time if I though it wise. But, our trade may increase in Canada at the expense of our own industries. If a hundred of the leading factories in Canada were wiped out of existence at the present time, the imports of Canada would necessarily show an increase, but it would not at all follow that because the imports of the country were increasing the country was therefore more prosperous. We laid down our platform in regard to this question in 1901 and again in 1902, but that platform did not find acceptance with my hon. friends on the other side of the House. They disagreed with it very strongly and yet they do

not seem to agree very closely amongst themselves. We stand on the platform which we laid down in 1901 and in 1902, and if there is not a revision of the tariff upon the lines indicated in the resolutions which we moved we shall again state our views in this House by a resolution during the present session. I am glad to say that we have won a convert even within the cabinet, and that is the youngest member of the cabinet, my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pre-fontaine). That gentleman while my hon. friend the Finance Minister was declaiming in favour of a low tariff in the county of Yarmouth, was announcing to the electors of Maisonneuve that he was in favour of legitimate protection to Canadian industries. Now, this is a very important announcement indeed and the significance of his language is all the greater because he included the right hon. leader of the government :
I am, as I always have been, in favour of legitimate protection to our national industries and like my leader Sir Wilfrid Laurier 1 will ask and require protection for the interests of the different classes of the population.
My hon. friend the Finance Minister would not be very much pleased with a platform of that kind, if we are to judge by his recent utterances in the province of Nova Scotia, but, of course, so far as Ontario and Quebec are concerned the hon. Minister of Finance may have an entirely different platform, and in the constituency of Maisonneuve I am inclined to believe that he would stand on exactly the same platform as the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there are one or two other matters perhaps on which a word might be said, but X think I will not take up the time of the House further at the present time beyond this : I am very glad indeed to learn by the speech from the Throne that the government proposes to bring down a measure in regard to Chinese immigration. My right hon. friend, in the campaign of 1896, made a pretty definite promise to the people of British Cclumbia in regard to that question. He. said that the question was not a question in the east but that as far as Chinese immigration was concerned the views of the Liberals of British Columbia would prevail. Well, my right hon. friend has a majority from that province, a very considerable majority indeed -and the views of the members from that province have been pretty freely expressed in this House. Nevertheless, no measure in regard to Chinese immigration has been brought down up to the present time. I am gJad that the government are at last taking this matter into their consideration and we shall be very ready indeed to give any suitable measure of that kind our most careful and earnest consideration. The people of
British Columbia, or a great many of them, feel very strongly on that subject, and those who have gone from the coast to British Columbia can readily understand that we in the east do not have a real conception of what that question means to the people of that province. It requires one not only to study the question from the reports of commissions and otherwise, but it also requires a visit to the province and a free statement of opinion from the people whom one meets of all classes in the province to understand how earnestly and how vigorously that question appeals to the large and important interests in the province of British Columbia. This speech does not in the least indicate what the nature of the measure is, but when it comes down we will be able to give it our attention and to criticize it if necessary. In the meantime we can only express our pleasure that the government have at last, in the seventh year after they have come into power, seen fit to deal in an effective way, we hope, with this question which is of such great importance to the west.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know that I shall detain the House further at the present time. I trust that my right hon. friend will see fit to give us frankly-as frankly as the interests of the country will permit-information in reference to the matters which I have mentioned and I trust especially that in regard to the present position of the Alaskan boundary he will speak openly and frankly to the people of Canada in order that we may know just how we do stand in regard to the people of the United States on the one hand and the imperial government on the other, cn a question of great importance to the people of Canada, one which concerns the possible loss of a portion of their territory.


The PRIME MINISTER (Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Mr. Speaker, before I proceed with the observations which the speech of the leader of the opposition call from me, I deem it my duty as it is my pleasure to at once thank my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) for the very kind reference which he has made to myself. I also thank his friends behind him for the manner in which they received these observations of his. I am glad to believe that this incident is a further evidence that the amenities of British parliamentary life are of so kindly a nature; and that in the hands of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition they are indeed in safe keeping. I trust it may always be, that we can recognize honourable differences of opinion in this country, and that though we may be divided upon many questions, yet we can be united upon one, and that is a mutual respect for each other. I also beg to thank the leader of the opposition for the observations which he has made with reference to the colleagues which it has been our


Robert Laird Borden: sad fate to lose during the recess, and I thank him all the more because his kindly remarks have dispensed me from dwelling further on that subject.
I am glad also to join with my hon. friend in the congratulations and the generous tribute which he has paid to the mover and seconder of the address. My hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) and my hon. friend from St. John and Iberville (Mr. Demers) are still young members, and although their parliamentary careers have been short they have both taken high rank on the floor of this House. We have heard them before ; we knew what they were and we knew what they could do. To-day we have had further cause for admiration, but we had no cause for surprise at what they said and how they said it.
I have, however, to take issue with my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) on the subject, matter of his speech, although as regards its tone and its language I think it was in excellent parliamentary style. On one or two points the hon. gentleman was hypercritical and perhaps even carping. But I must do the hon. gentleman the credit of saying that lie is not half so bad as he makes himself out to be when he is speaking from his place on the opposite side of the House. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden) has been endowed by nature with a fair and judicial mind, and I readily believe that if he always spoke his own judgment from the seat which he now adorns, he would sometimes revise the opinions to which he gives utterance. But the hon. gentleman belongs to a party which a long possession of power has confirmed in the belief that they were born to rule; and. so, regarding power as their own attribute they are ready to believe when they are defeated that they have been robbed of their own. Thus, whenever they have been deprived of power, they are more or less in a bad humour, and like Rachel mourning her lost children they refuse to be comforted.
iMy hon. friend has asked information from me on certain subjects, some of which are referred to in the speech and some of which are not. Be has made an earnest appeal to me to give him a frank statement of the position which we occupy in regard to thei Alaskan boundary. I shall answer that appeal in the spirit in which it was made.
At long last a treaty has been made for the settlement of that vexed question which has for years been pending. It is a question of great importance inasmuch as, if not settled, it could lead to very serious and even perhaps to very dangerous consequences. A treaty has been negotiated by His Majesty's ambassador at Washington and the Secretary of State of the United States for the settlement of that question. As to the treaty itself I am bound to say that in my opinion at all events-with the single
exception of a very slight blemish to which I shall allude presently-the treaty is eminently fair. The treaty provides for a reference of the boundary to a court to be composed of six impartial jurists of repute, that is to say, the commission has been entrusted with the task of dctenhining what is the boundary as created by the treaty of 1825 between Russia and Great Britain. It is not a compromise; it is not an arbitration; there is no giving and no taking; but it is simply to have a judicial interpretation of what is the true boundary ; each party agreeing in advance to accept the boundary has it may be declared, and whatever loss it may give to the other. This is a great victory. I consider, in one way, that we have obtained over the pretentions which have been hitherto advanced by the United States. Up to the present time the United States have refused, steadily refused any kind of reference of that question if the consequences were to entail to them any loss of territory. This is one of the questions which was referred in 1898 to the Joint High Commission. We toad it before us on more than one occasion, and we had discussions of long duration with reference to it, but it always came to this at the end : that the United States would not agree to any terms except on condition that the possessions that they have at /the present time were made theirs beyond doubt. The question has involved some serious consideration from the fact that it is possible, that the boundary, after it has been delimited by the commission, may perhaps show that some territory which now is occupied by one party really belongs to the other. Take for example the tow.i of Skagway, which is now in the possession of the United States. It Is possible that the boundary which is going to be delimited under this commission may Hiow that Skagway does not belong to the United States but to Great Britain. Up to the present time the United States would not agree to any treaty whatever which might place their ownership of Skagway, and -similar territories in jeopardy. They wanted to make it sure, that in anv event, whatever the result might be, their possessions, including Skagway, should remain in the teritory of the United States. The Joint Commission had proposed in 1898, and in 1899 when we sat at Washington, that as it was a case somewhat parallel to the case of Venezueala, the precedent of Venezueala should apply. The rule which had been laid down by the Venezuealan treaty under somewhat similar conditions to this was as follows there were three principles laid down but it is sufficient for the purpose of this discussion to cite only this one :-
la determining the boundary, it territory of one party shall be found by the tribunal to have been at the date of this treaty in the

occupation of a subject or citizen of the other party ; such effect shall be given to such occupation as reason, justice, the principles of International law and the equities of the case, shall in the opinion of the tribunal require.
It seemed to us that was a very fair rule, We proposed it to the American commissioners, but they would not accept it unless it were coupled with this rider :
That all towns and settlements on tide water, settled under the authority of the United States, and under the jurisdiction of the United States at the date of this treaty shall remain under the authority and jurisdiction of the United States.	,
We would not agree to such a condition. This condition has been maintained by the United States from 1899 up to the year 1903; but in the treaty which has been negotiated and signed by Sir Michael Herbert and Mr. John Hay, this rider has been removed; and now the United States go to the arbitration with Canada without any condition of that kind, but agreeing that both parties shall submit to the award which shall be given by those six jurists of repute.
Now, it seems to me that we could not have more than has been given by this treaty. As my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has said, we do not want any territory which is not ours; neither do we want to part with any territory which is ours. We are willing to take the consequences of this commission. We may lose or we may gain. If we lose, we shall pay the consequences; if we gain, our opponents must pay the consequences. This is the position in which we now go before the court to have this question determined. So far as the treaty itself is concerned, or that part of it at all events, there is no point that has been gained by anybody. It has been said by the press that Canada has made a surrender. I am glad to say, and the House will agree with me, that there is not a particle of surrender in this treaty. It is fair and honourable to both parties, and I am more than pleased that our American neighbours should have come to that conclusion. With regard to the composition of the tribunal, the article of the treaty referring to it provides for a tribunal of six impartial jurists of repute, three to be appointed by the United States and three by Great Britain; and therefore we have a fair tribunal. If impartial jurists are appointed on either side, we shall have as fair a tribunal as it is possible to have.
I have said there is a blemish in the composition of the tribunal. The only blemish I can see in it is that it is not so composed as to ensure finality of decision. If there were seven jurists, or five, instead of six. there would be of a certainty a majority in any event, and the matter would be finally disposed of ; but as the tribunal is constituted, it is possible there may be three on one side and three on the Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
other, in which case there will be no decision. But even if we have no decision, we shall have obtained what my hon. friend attaches some importance to-the best education possible for the American people, the British people and the Canadian people, as to the merits of this question. But I may say for my part that I do not apprehend any such result. It seems to me that six impartial men ought to be able to come to a conclusion on a question of this kind.
I agree with my hon. friend on one suggestion he made-that if we are to appoint commissioners on this tribunal, they must not be partisans, but they must be the best men and men of the highest character that the British empire can supply. We had. at one time reason to believe that on the American side as well as on the British side the jurists of repute would be taken from the bench. We would have been glad indeed if the President had seen fit to take the commissioners from the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States.
But now I come to the crucial point of this question, the only one on which at this moment I feel some delicacy about speaking. It has been rumored in the press that the President had selected men who were not judges, and men who, from their previous record, could not be called impartial jurists. I am not aware that Mr. Root, the Secretary for War, has expressed any opinion at all ; but he is a member of the administration of President Roosevelt, and it seems to some of us anomalous that a member of a party who is before the court as a suitor should sit on the bench as a judge in the case. With regard to Mr. Turner, I understand that he has expressed himself somewhat against the Canadian contention. However, I have not seen any word he has spoken except something in the form of a short report in the press. As to Mr. Lodge, he has certainly given utterance to expressions of such a character as to cause some reflection upon the advisability of placing him upon that court. We 'have made representations to Great Britain upon all these matters. The correspondence in which we have been engaged was concluded only yesterday, and it is not yet possible for me to place it on the Table of the House. Perhaps it is preferable that I should not proceed any further on this question, until the whole of the correspondence can be placed on the Table of the House, so that members on both sides shall have an opportunity to judge of the action we have taken. Therefore I shall not say any more at present, but in a few days I will bring to the House the whole of the correspondence. In fact,
I think I shall have authority to lay before parliament the whole of the correspondence which has taken place between the Canadian government and the imperial government from the time the .Joint Higli Commission adjourned in Washington in 1899.

My hon. friend has called upon me also to give information on the subject of trade with Germany. It is quite proper that this desire of my hon. friend should be gratified. He has called our attention to a paragraph which is to he found in the blue-book containing the proceedings of the imperial conference, as follows :
In coneotion with the discussion of the question of preferential trade the conference also considered the point raised by the commonwealth government as to the possibility of the colonies losing most favoured nation treatment in foreign countries in the event of their giving a tariff preference to British goods. As, however, the exports from the colonies to foreign countries are almost exclusively articles of food or raw materials for various industries, the possibility of discrimination against them in foreign markets was not regarded as serious, and as the exports from foreign countries to the colonies are mainly manufactured articles it was recognized that if such discrimination did take place the colonies had an effective remedy in their own hands.
My hon. friend said a moment ago, if you recognized that you had an effective remedy in your own hands for the unfriendly attitude of Germany, why did you not make use of that weapon ? The answer is obvious. My hon. friend has hot forgotten that last year he asked for the production of the correspondence which had been going on for some time between the Canadian government and the German authorities. At that time we were not in a position to bring down the correspondence; it was not complete; but at present it is complete, and we are ready to bring it down, and within a few days we shall lay it on the Table of the House. I may say also that this subject will be taken up again in the budget debate by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend has desired to have the correspondence with the governments of Newfoundland and Great Britain with regard to the new treaty negotiated by Newfoundland with the United States. I shall be glad to bring down any correspondence in the possession of this government, but with regard to the attitude we have taken on the subject, I may say that the question is one that has long engaged our attention and that we have obtained, as the result of our efforts, the assurance that if Newfoundland be allowed by Great Britain to negotiate a treaty with the government of the United States, there shall be no discrimination in it against Canada and that the same treatment given to the American republic shall be given to the Canadian confederation.
My hon. friend also urged that the time is opportune to reopen negotiations with Newfoundland with a view to its entrance into confederation. Let me say that the government of the Hon. Sir Mackenzie Bowell lost a fine opportunity of settling that question. At all events there were then negotiations far advanced, and I believe that had a little more generous disposition been shown by Canada to Newfoundland, the question would have been settled there and then. But if Sir Mackenzie Bowell could have settled the question and did not do so, I cannot blame him veiy much, because so long as the French shore difficulty is not disposed of it, will always be a serious bar to the entrance of Newfoundland into confederation. I think that Newfoundland ought to be a part of confederation. I am prepared at any time to meet the representatives of Newfoundland in order to facilitate that end. But I would hesitate very much, even if it were in my power to complete the transaction, to do so unless this most irritating question of the French shore were removed from the probability of creating mischief in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think my right hon. friend quite understands me. My suggestion was that this government should take the initiative in endeavouring to have the difficulty settled for the purpose of bringing Newfoundland into confederation.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The correspondence will show something of this character, when brought down.
My hon. friend also drew my attention to the question of transportation and asked me the meaning of a paragraph in the speech from the Throne relating to that subject. That paragraph reads as follows : The great influx of population into our North-western territories and the very large additional areas of fertile land which are being brought under cultivation combine to further press upon us the need for increased transportation facilities for the forwarding of our grain and other products to the markets of the world, through Canadian channels. The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
The question asked by my hon. friend is quite legitimate. There are two ideas involved in this paragraph. In the first place, the rapid filling up of the North-west territories makes it absolutely indispensable that measures be promptly taken for opening up ways of communication into the prairie sections and for the extension of those communications to the sea board. Numerous projects have been placed before us, but up to the present the government have taken no position. The matter is one of too great importance, involving too many risks, involving large demands, for the government to lightly jump into new undertakings of any kind, and we thought it desirable to wait the opening of parliament in order to consult our friends and have the benefit of tlie advice of parliament before taking any steps. But we give due warning to the Canadian parliament-and I think it is not out of place-that new efforts have to be made by the Canadian people to meet the

new requirements resulting from the development of our country. What form we should adopt, whether the government should participate or not, whether the government should help or not, or what should be the form of assistance, are questions which present themselves and as to which we have taken no pledge, and as to which we shall have not only to consult our friends but have the advice of parliament at large. That is not all. There is another sentence in that paragraph to which I would call attention :
The whole question of transportation and terminal facilities continues to occupy much attention, and my government will immediately appoint a commission of experienced men to report on the subject.
What is the meaning of this ? The House knows that we have expended a great deal of money in order to remove the congestion which is every year taking place at the head of Lake Superior, and provide terminal facilities ot the different ports of the country. We have expended at Port Col-borne a great deal and also at Montreal, Quebec and at St. John, N.B. We are asked to spend more money in these and other places. Parliament will be called upon to make new sacrifices. But before we spend any money, whether at Port Arthur, Port Colborne or Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec or St. John, we think it of the highest possible moment that we should have a committee of experts, the most experienced men the country can furnish, in order to obtain from them a full report as to what is required, so that, before another dollar is asked from parliament, parliament should know exactly what amount is required and how it shall be expended. I think that this is an idea which will commend itself to the judgment of members of both sides.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: Will we likely have that report this session ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is more than I can say. The commission will be announced probably on Monday, but whether we shall have a report this session I cannot say.
My hou. friend deyoted a great part of his time to the conference which took place in London last summer. He said that this conference had been barren of results. I do not share that opinion. I do not share the opinion that the conference which sat in London, and at which the representatives of all the self-governing colonies took part, was barren of results. True it was void of such results as were anticipated by those shortsighted men who would cause England to revert to the fatal policy of the eighteenth century, whose aim was to saddle the colonies with burdens which do not belong to them, a policy which carried to extreme limits in that age, brought about the violent separation of the American colonies from the motherland. That conference settled : Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
the principle upon which the British empire alone can rest, the principle that the British empire is composed of a galaxy of free nations all owing the same allegiance to the same sovereign, but all owing paramount allegiance also to their respective peoples.
We were invited to discuss three subjects-the commercial relations, the political relations and the military relations which ought to exist between Great Britain and her colonies. As to the question of commercial relations, I do not propose to say much at this time, because I do not believe it can be discussed so well now as later. When my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) brings down his budget-and I hope to be able to say that that will be at an early day-we shall better be able to take up the question which has been referred to by my hon. friend (Sir. Borden). In the meantime, I can satisfy him on one or two subjects as to which, perhaps, he has not all the information he might have possessed. The hon. gentleman says that the Canadian representatives do not appear to have made any propositions to the conference. Sir, we went to the conference without auy propositions whatever ; we went to receive and entertain suggestions from the others. But, when we came before that conference we had suggestions to offer and propositions to make. The trade resolution passed by the conference was the work of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance. My hon. friend the Postmaster General (Sir William Mulock) introduced a resolution to reduce the postage on newspapers and periodicals between different parts of the empire, and I am glad to say that that proposal has already been acted upon, and my hon. friend has taken steps to give effect to the suggestion he then offered. The Postmaster General also introduced the resolution, which was carried, to have the metric system adopted throughout the British empire. These, of course, were minor points. Upon the main question at issue, I have only this to say in anticipation of the debate which will take place later on-that the conditions in 1902-3 in Great Britain are not the same as were the conditions of 1897. In 1897 Great Britain had nothing as to which she could make-if I may so say it-a reciprocity treaty ; but now the conditions are changed; Great Britain has imposed a duty on cereals and is now in a position to meet our views, and, perhaps have a reciprocity of trade between Canada and Great Britain. That is the reason why we have spoken differently in 1902-3 from the way we spoke in 1897. We are not flies on the wheel-we move with the times, and, the times having changed, we were ready to take advantage of the opportunity and place our views before the British parliament. AVhether they will fructify or not remains to be seen. The new budget has not been presented by the

British Chancellor of the Exchequer. In a few weeks or months, we shall see what will take place, and, having seen that, it will be time enough to take a step.
Then, we were called upon to consider the political relations. As to the political relations which exist between Canada and the colonies generally and the mother land, they are perfectly satisfactory, they could not be improved, and any attempt which has been made with a view of improving them has only led to Utopia. 1 can dismiss this subject without further discussion and go on to say something with regard to the subject which was treated at some length by my hon. friend from Haldimand -the military relations between Canada and Great Britain. There is a school in Great Britain to-day, especially in the official world, whose object for years past has been to bring Canada into the military organizations of Great Britain. The views of that school and their expectations were presented to us by the Right Hon. St. John Brodrick, Secretary of State for War, and by Lord Selborne, First Lord of the Admiralty. But we could not see eye to eye with them, we could not approve their views, and had to propose an absolute demurrer to their contentions. X am aware that there are men, even in Canada, who use the argument that, because Canada is part of the British empire she should take part in the large expenditure necessary to provide the heavy armaments that Great Britain has to maintain because of her dominant position in the world. X can not see the force of that logic. It would imply that Great Britain and Canada were on a footing of equality, whereas we know that they are not on such a footing. Great Britain has powers that we have not. To mention no others, she has the treaty making powers which we have not. And the powers not being co-extensive, the obligations cannot be co-extensive. That argument would imply also that Canada and Great Britain have the same interest in all things. But we know by experience that we have not the same interests. The interests of Canada are divergent from those of Great Britain in many instances. This is seen in the fact that no two of the self-governing parts of the British empire have the same fiscal policy. That argument would imply also that Great Britain and Canada are on the same footing of development. Sir, we know only too well that we have obligations in this country which Great Britain is rid of. As a consequence of our geographical position, the immensity of our territory and the sparsity of our population, we have to assume obligations, to face difficulties and to perform works which in the parent country are left to private enterprise. But though, in all these, the position of the mother country and the colony may be unequal, yet, in the colony there is equal national pride and constitutional jealousy of our rights. This, therefore, makes it absolutely impossible to entertain the proposition made to us. But X confess that we owe it to ourselves as a nation-as we claim to be-to assume our own defence. And, so far as that goes, if we have to spend more money upon military and naval service, I am sure that parliament and the Canadian people will not grudge any sum demanded for that purpose. But, to spend money outside of Canada for military purposes is a proposition that the Canadian people, I believe, are not prepared to accept at this moment. When, in 1899, we took part in the South African war, we did it not under any obligation, not in the execution of any duty which rested upon us-and, to give Great Britain her due, she did not claim it on such grounds either -but we did it simply because we thought it was right and proper to do so. But we refused to be bound for the future, and the position we took then I maintain still.
Now, my hon. friend from Haldimand stated a moment ago that the country was prosperous. He gave us a very splendid picture indeed of the position of Canada on entering the twentieth century. Though vivid, the colours were not too bright in which he painted the extension of our commerce, the development of our agriculture, the increase of our population and the advance of our industries. In all these facts, however, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was judiciously silent. The progress of Canada is an inspiring theme, but it does not appeal to my hon. friend or his followers. If they had to speak of destitution, poverty and ruin, their language would have been jubilant and exultant. But prosperity makes them dumb, whereas adversity would set their tongues wagging with a merry clatter from this time to the end of the session. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition undertook a missionary tour a few weeks ago to a certain part of the province of Ontario. While there he did not speak much on the subject of Canada's prosperity, but he spoke repeatedly on the alleged divisions in the ranks of the Liberal party.
I have no doubt my hon. friend can speak feelingly upon that subject, because he speaks of a party which, during some ten years in the past, exhibited amongst its ieaders the proverbial amity that exists between cats and dogs. My hon. friend made a missionary tour some days ago in the province of Ontario, and among the leaders of the Conservative party he was like the last rose of summer, left blooming alone. I do not quarrel with my hon. friend upon that point, because I am bound to tell him that as between Liberals and Conservatives we do not view in the same way the divergencies of opinion that may exist between men professing the same political allegiance. It is a principle of the powerful political organization calling itself the Conservative

Association that all minds must be cast in the same mould, that all wheels must revolve In the same groove, they must act like a flock of sheep, and wherever one jumps the others must follow. We have not the same standard of excellence, that is not the way we do in the ranks of the Liberal party, associated as we are


Mr. COCHRANE.: You cau fight like blazes, and It will be all right.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Oh yes, we can fight like blazes, and then we peaceably settle our little differences. But we do not fight, as the hon. gentlemen opposite used to fight when they were in the council chamber they used to fight with their naked fists, and the walls of the council chamber could testify of some Homeric battle which took place therein when the hon. gentlemen could not settle their differences of opinion in any other way. My hon. friend, in the campaign which he made a few days ago, professed to be in ignorance of tiie policy of the Liberal party. I must say that his ignorance is surprising, occupying the position that he does, having been for seven years now, if I mistake not. a member of this parliament. His ignorance surprises me, for the policy of the Liberal party has been on the statute-book for six years. When it was introduced into this House it was discussed and debated, and was assailed by my hon. friend and his followers. My hon. friend has been assailing the Liberal policy for all these years, and must we come to the conclusion that he dirt not know what he was talking about ?
. It is certainly in the public interest that an hon. gentleman occupying the position that he does should be informed of what was the policy of the Liberal party. Surely my hon. friend knows that on this side of the House there are men who believe that free trade is the soundest and sanest of all economical systems, and there are also men who believe that protection is a preferable principle. If I am told that it is a strange thing that there should be free traders and protectionists in the same party, I would reply that it is the policy of statesmanship to reconcile differences, and out of a diversity of opinions to elaborate a policy which may be satisfactory to the country, remembering that there are no absolute rights in this country, but that all rights are subordinate to the common welfare. But I may also say to my hon. friend, and in saying this I may perhaps claim to be more candid than himself or his friends, that whether we are free traders or protectionists, we are all agreed that in this country and under existing circumstances, it is as inadvisable as it is impossible to have either an absolute system of free trade or an absolute system of protection. Our system was embodied in the year 1897 in a tariff which will live in history as the Fielding tariff. It is well suited to the country, as is evidenced by Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
past experience, and by the unbounded prosperity which the country has enjoyed under it. My hon. friend says that he has a recruit for his views in the person of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Prefontaine). He says the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is a protectionist, but if he had quoted the whole speech of my hon. friend he would have quoted that part of his speech wherein he says that in the present tariff there is enough of protection to satisfy him, and to satisfy anybody who looks only to the interest of the country and not to the interest of his party.
But my hon. friend says that we are divided on this question. What would my hon. friend say if I were to show him a man, not a party but a man, who is divided against himself on this question ? Will he say it is impossible for a single man to be divided on that question ? We can conceive it possible that a party might be divided against itself but surely it is a stranger thing to find a man divided against himself. Well, I have read the speeches of my hon. friend. I had that pleasure for some weeks after I came back from Europe, and I found that my hon. friend is divided against himself on that very question. He has not the same opinion in all parts of the country. I must, however, pay him this compliment, that in order to suit the views of an audience in one part of the country and then suit the views of another audience in another part of the country, he has performed some feats of acrobatic agility of which I did not suspect him capable. Let me quote the words of my hon. friend on this question. Last year my hon. friend gave us his views of what he thought ought to be the fiscal policy of Canada. He is a new leader, and of course he is trying to please all his friends, and he succeeds very well in doing so. I give him credit for that. He wished to lay down a policy upon which he could go before the country and the people, and so he moved this resolution :
This House regarding the operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products, manufactures and industries, as will at all times secure the Canadian market for Canadians.
" Adequate protection." In the olden times it used to be called the National Policy. But it is the same old friend with a new name. " Adequate protection." Well, whether you call it adequate protection or the National Policy, it is still a debatable question as to what adequate protection means. I may say to my right hon. friend that he did not leave us in doubt as to what he meant by adequate protection, for in the course of his speech in support of this resolution, he said this :
We find that our rate of duty on total imports from the United States is about 121 per cent, and on dutiable goods from the United

States 24'83- per cent, while on the other hand, the rate of duty on the total imports of the United States is 28'91 per cent, and on dutiable goods it is 49'83 per cent, or, more than double our rate in each case. As has been already pointed out, the United States has nearly three-fourths of the total importation of free goods into Canada, while Great Britain has to be content with some 15 per cent. One would expect that if we intend to maintain and build up our own products and manufactures against such powerful and tremendous competition as that which we must anticipate from the United States we would fix our tariff of customs .against that country on a scale at least as high as is that of their tariff against us.
That is to say, we must have the American tariff. This is adequate protection. Forty-nine per cent is the American tariff, so that in order to be consistent and to build up our industries, we must have a tariff of 49 per cent against the United States. This is the policy of my hon. friend such as it was set forth on the floor of the House, and here in the east. But, during the recess my hon. friend went to visit the North-west. If I may be permitted to say so, I congratulate him for having done so. I have no doubt that the people were pleased to have an opportunity of seeing and hearing the new leader of the party and it was right that, he should come into contact with them and right that he should visit these new communities. But, if his friends have reason to he happy over his visit his opponents have also reason to be gratified that he took that course, because, there is no experience like the experience of having to speak before different communities in different parts of the country to shbw the character of a policy, whatever there may be in it of good or bad. As my hon. friend proceeded westward, as he commenced to sniff the breezes of the prairie, as he inhaled the fragrance of the new ploughed soil, as he gazed upon the immensity of flie new wheat fields, as he came in contact with the hardy settler, who has hewed civilization out of the desert, his ideas expanded with the views of the horizon before him, and when he came to Medicine Hat the medicine had already had its effect upon him, and I am happy to say-and I give him my compliments for it-new ideas had already sprouted under his hat. To the people of Medicine Hat he spoke, to the hardy settlers he came to preach the new gospel of the Conservative party, and here is the language he held. You have heard the language he held here on the floor of parliament, advocating a Canadian tariff of 49 per cent against the consumers of Canada. But, that is not the language he held to the people of the North-west Territories.
His policy was one of reasonable protection to all Canadian industries, and he was prepared to say this before any Canadian audience. Competition amongst Canadian industries had resulted in a marvellous reduction of prices, and he did not think the people of Canada would suffer by a moderate protective tariff. The. Conservative party was in no way bound up with the interests of the manufacturers and he could tell the people in all sincerity that the Liberal party had received during the past six years, and was receiving support from the manufacturers. He was well applauded on taking his seat.
I believe so, but I do not know that he would have been so well applauded when he took his seat if he had advocated the American tariff of 49 per cent. We can make a comparison between the language he held here and the language spoken to the people of the North-west Territories. What a difference there is between the selfsufficient policy of 49 per cent in the east and the meek, moderate, humble, apologizing, protective policy given to the people of the North-west Territories ! It is true the hon. gentleman is still in favour of a moderate tariff to keep the foreigner out so that the manufacturers may be cooped up in a small pit so that they can not viciously cut into each other's prices and the consumer may have the benefit of a lower tariff. Is this the boasted sincerity of the Conservative party when they speak of the policy of protection ? It is one thing in the east, it is one thing in the west, and there, Sir, is the condemnation of the policy of the hon. gentleman and the vindication of the policy we have on this side of the House.
Now, Sir, my hon. friend never said a word on an important subject that is mentioned in the speech from the Throne; that is to say, the new Redistribution Bill which must be introduced during the present session. We have to introduce that Bill and we will do it, not of choice, but of necessity. The necessity is imposed upon us by the letter of the constitution. We know from the experience of the past, we know from the history of former Redistribution Bills, that there are several ways of introducing such a measure, but if there be several ways of introducing it there is only one way which ought to be accepted by the Canadian parliament; that is to say, the honest, fair way, so as to give no favour to anybody and to injure nobody. I have here a statement which has been placed in my hands of 42 counties in Ontario which at the last election returned 25 Conservative members and 17 Liberal members, whereas, in these 42 counties the popular vote gave an actual majority as recorded to the Liberal candidates. In these 42 counties 88,365 votes were cast for Liberal candidates and 86,392 were cast for Conservative candidates, showing a Liberal majority of 1,973 votes-result 25 Conservative members elected, 17 Liberal members elected; and majority of votes in favour of Liberal party; majority of seats in favour of Conservative party. That is the fairness of the redistribution that we have had before us for twenty years. The objects

of the government in introducing legislation shall be, first, to wipe out the injustices and abuses from which the Liberals in Ontario have suffered for twenty-one years, and next to devise a measure in such terms as to give no favour either to the party in power or to the party in the minority, but to devise a measure, which, whatever may be the question brought before the Canadian parliament at any time, shall make it certain that the views of the people shall upon every occasion prevail and the majority shall rule.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.
After Kecess.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: Mr. Speaker. I wish to refer as briefly as possible to the address which is about to be adopted by this House in replv to the speech from the Throne. Let me say at once, that I feel convinced that I am but the faithful echo of all my friends sitting on this side of the House when I say that the tone of the right hon, Prime Minister's speech has brought to us gladdening news. I find in it the tone of a man who is returning to health and I am sure that that knowledge which was conveyed to us, and which will be conveyed to the country at large to-morrow will be received with great pleasure by all true Canadians. I am not a medical man, but I have heard it said that the first sign of returning health is a disposition on the part of the invalid to resort to facetiousness and in some of the remarks which fell from the lips of the right hon. gentleman I was pleased to find that indication of a sure convalescence.
We all listened with unfeigned satisfaction to the admirable addresses of the mover and seconder of this resolution. My hon. friend the gallant member for Haldi-mand (Mr. Thompson) rose to a high pitch of eloquence, and at times I had merely to close my eyes to see as it were before me a vision such as is depicted in some of Turner's landscapes-lands with clear skies, enchanting scenery, everything flowing with milk and honey. That feeling which X experienced with pleasure was in no sense diminished when I heard the member for St. Johns and Iberville (Mr. Demers) in the beautiful language of France, describe to us with even greater intensity the prosperity which reigns throughout the country, and the reasons we ought have to be perfectly satisfied and to seek no further improvement in the condition of this country. I remember long ago studying when at school the beautiful work of the Bishop of Cambrai, the Journey of Telemachus to the Isles of Calypso and when I heard my hon. friend from St. Johns and Iberville, my mind was recalled to the admirable description of the Paradisean lands in which Telemachus travelled : gods Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
and goddesses, and everything that goes to make life fair and pleasant. My hon. friend (Mr. Borden) to my right rudely awoke me from this dream by giving us some considerations which I have no doubt will impress themselves upon the minds of a great many thinking people, and a great many business people throughout this country. Of course that only lasted during the address of my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) and I was again plunged into a trance by the satisfied speech of the right hon. gentleman who leads the government. He told us :	We have made an admirable treaty
in regard to Alaska, we have had a colonial conference replete with excellent results; the policy followed by this government in respect to that legislation which we claim is necessary to make our country what it ought to be, is a perfect policy; absolute harmony reigns not only within the cabinet but amongst all the members of the Liberal party and the government has nothing to do now but to set itself to work to repair the gross injustices which have been done by past administration^. Sir, 1 won,Id like to join my right 'lion, friend in that song of happiness and perfect peace, but I think Sir, you yourself, as well as every man in this House is persuaded of that great truth which says : That we must follow the laws of progress; that we have here in Canada a great country with changing conditions; a young country the enormous resources of which have only within the past twenty years become apparent; that we have powerful competitors quite near us; powerful competitors in the old continent of Europe, in every line, industrial, agricultural, artistic. This century has begun an era of progress which is going to lead us to great changes and if we wish to keep pace with the rest of the world we cannot afford to remain satisfied ; we must set our shoulders to the wheel, we must realize our position as a small people in this great country, and we must still unsatisfied move forward, making important changes, and endeavouring by a policy which may be called a national policy, or a policy of adequate protection, or whatever you may choose to call it-we must endeavour to build up this country, to make of it a great commonwealth, and to realize the destiny which it seems to me is clearly pointed out to us by Providence when that great power gave us this immense inheritance. Mr. Speaker, taking the utterances of the two hon. gentlemen who moved the address ; can we say that there is throughout the length and breadth of the land entire satisfaction with the policy of the government ? Can we say that there is that feeling of satisfaction which does not betray throughout this country-not what the right hon. gentleman stated a few moments before he left the chair : That there are free traders and protectionists on the government

benches-but that there is throughout the entire country amongst thinking men engaged in business, (not only in manufacturing business but in agricultural pursuits as well) a great desire at the present moment to know what is in reality the preponderant element of that party which as the right hon. gentleman says himself is divided upon a question of vital moment in this country-and, whether we shall have in reality" a policy of Canada for the Canadians, or whether this government is going to pursue a course which the right hon. gentleman sums up when he said :	That
the part of government consists in reconciling and in balancing these divided opinions which he himself admits exists in the ranks of his own party.
On this side cf the House there is no difficulty of that kind. I will advert in a moment to this statement of policy, which is consistent throughout-frank and outspoken, and which won the praises, not only of the followers of my hon. friend at my right, the leader of the opposition, but the praises in many instances of numbers of the right hon. gentleman's own followers. The right hon. gentleman states that there are divergent views within his own party in respect to that most important principle of protection. He did not require to make that statement for us to know that that divergence exists, and it has produced within the ranks of my right hon. friend's own party divisions far deeper and far greater than any which my right hon. friend is able to point out on this side of the House. It is not with equal justice that my right hon. friend treats those who are in favour of a strong national policy, and those who on the contrary believe, as some hon, gentlemen who sit on the opposition benches believe, that the present tendency ought to be in favour of a lower tariff, and of admitting, as we claim the policy of hon. gentlemen opposite admits, the great competitors of our own country to a privileged position in our own markets. Mr. Speaker, we have had by-elections, and, speaking for myself, our party has not been as successful in my own province as I would have liked ; but we have had the spectacle in the province of Quebec, which I have no doubt has been repeated elsewhere, which the right hon. gentleman claimed with pride as one of the great qualities of the party which he leads. In the electoral district of Argenteuil we had the members of the present cabinet and all their supporters speaking strongly in favour of a reduced tariff. I have not here with me, but lam prepared to lay on the Table of this House the campaign speech of my friend Mr. Weir who led the ministerial forces in the electoral district of Argenteuil ; and what did he say in that pamphlet which was spread broadcast throughout the constituency ? He stated that the party led by my right hon. friend was a party who remained faithful even to-day to the policy
enunciated by my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright), and he quoted the minister's own words, which consisted in a repudiation of every element of protection, and in a condemnation of that policy as being a policy of robbery and scoundrelism. During the very time that campaign was being waged, we had the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Prefontaine), in the division of Maisonneuve, a great industrial division of the city of Montreal, posing before the electorate as a man who would not adhere to any other policy than the policy of protection, and who was prepared at any moment, upon sufficient cause being shown him, to raise the tariff, and who went around begging the names of the manufacturers of the city of Montreal, imploring them to sign his requisition paper, in order, as he said, to show to the manufacturing people and to the workingmen of that important district, that the government were pledged to the protection of their interests, and going so far, as I am informed, as to write letters, pledging the government in certain cases to an increase in the tariff, in order to secure the support of those important elements of our population. Shortly afterwards, if not at the same time, down in the electoral district of Yarmouth, we had tlie Minister of Finance upholding the policy of a lower tariff, of a tariff for revenue only ; and at a great banquet given to celebrate the victory of the free-trade candidate, my hon. friend the member for Guysboro' (Mr. Fraser) reproved the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and condemned the system pursued in the province of Quebec of pandering to the taste of those who wanted to build up once more the na-' tional policy, and stated that the result obtained in Yarmouth ought to encourage the party to which he belonged to fly frankly and boldly the colours of a lower tariff and even of a revenue tariff. Under these circumstances it is not surprising that we who sit on this side of the House should point out the inconsistencies of hon. gentlemen opposite, as it is our duty to do ; and we shall endeavour to perform that duty in such a way as to give satisfaction. And I will say to the right hon. gentleman that if the improvement in the condition of his health depends on us, we will favour it in every way possible, and we will trust that the example which I hope we shall set patriotically, will be followed by his own friends, and that they will contribute, as we desire to do, to the complete restoration of his health.
But, Sir, it was said by the right hon. gentleman that divisions have existed in past cabinets. It may be so ; but I took note of what the right hon. gentleman further said, that those divisions manifested themselves in the council chamber, where, as Lord Melbourne aptly said on a celebrated occasion, they should manifest themselves. But what of the divisions purport-

ing to exist upon that great question in respect of which there is a feeling of unrest throughout the country which it is the duty of the right hon. gentleman to set at rest ? The divisions which existed, if they did exist, in the council chamber, have been intensified in the case of our hon. friends opposite, and we had the spectacle in our own province of these gentlemen not settling their differences in the council chamber, but going down when the right hon. gentleman was returning a sick man from Europe, and fighting out their differences, like the pilots of Oapt. Marryatt, on the deck of a steamer. We had the spectacle of five ministers going down to meet the premier of this country and insisting that one of their own colleagues should withdraw from the cabinet because he belonged to that phalanx of kis party which holds to the view that at present the great duty imposes itself upon all Canadians of determining whether this country is going to get the full benefit of its resources, or whether these resources are to continue being used to enrich our neighbours to the south, and we are to continue being made the slaughter market for the great manufacturers of Europe.
At present, under the preferential clause, we are sacrificed to the great manufacturers of Great Britain. I repeat to-day what I said on a former occasion, when challenged by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance to express an opinion on this preferential clause, that if we gave a preference to Great Britain, we should in return have some corresponding advantage in the British market. That opinion, I believe, is held by many others, and that is the policy which my hon. friend the member for Montmorency (Mr. Casgrain) and myself advocated in this House long ago. Ready and willing as we were to give Great Britain a preference, we were not prepared to grant such a preference as would imperil in any way our own great industrial interests. Take that great industry which is of particular interest to the provinces of Quebec and Ontario. In the province of Quebec, owing to the antipatriotic conditions obtained from the local government, our immense wealth of pulp wood, sufficient, according to the calculation of reliable experts, to last over 800 years, is being taken over to the United States. We derive from that great natural resource the smallest amount possible of wealth to ourselves. We get for our pulp wood about $3.50 per cord and in the neighbouring republic, where it is manufactured, the American manufacturers add to that cord of wood the value of $45. And in many instances that pulp comes back to us in the shape of paper. We are entitled to know from the government whether it is prepared to come down with any new policy which would enable our workingmen to get the share they are entitled to out of the profits to be derived from the manufacture of pulp within our own border. When we know that Mr. MONK.
we have immense deposits of iron in this country and that steel billets are being taken over to the United States where they pay a duty of $6 a ton, which is returned afterwards in the shape of a drawback, and that this steel is manufactured in the United States into rods and galvanized wire and afterwards sent back to this country for sale, is it not our duty to insist on the government adopting a policy which will enable the work of manufacture to be done in our own country and change the balance of trade which is at present $70,000,000 against us, with our American neighbour. In the recent campaign in the province of Ontario, when I had occasion to visit the northern part of that province, I was confronted with the fact that mattes of nickel, which cost Americans perhaps $125 a ton, are taken over in immense quantities to the United States, to the refineries of New Jersey, and there given a value of over $2,500 a ton. And it is a fair question for us to ask this government to alter that system and give us in Canada the full benefit of the manufacture and by-products of that great natural wealth, which we share with only one other country in the world.
Throughout the constituencies which 1 visited during the last by-election, it was stated that we who sit on this side of the House wished merely to favour the manufacturer to the detriment of the agriculturist. But I venture to say that, after my hon. friends who sit on the treasury benches have heard the complaint of the farmers and market gardeners of Ontario and also the similar complaints of the associations of farmers and market gardeners of the province of Qnebec who are coming up next Tuesday to claim the revision of the tariff in respect to their industry, we shall not hear formulated in this House the charges that were made during the last campaign. Then, allow me, in that connection, to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, what have been the results, as regards the agriculturists, of the policy pursued by this government during the last few years. In 1896, we had importations of butter, cheese, bacon and hams, beef salted, pork barrelled, meats dried, and other provisions the products of the fields of the American union, to the amount of $1,288,041. During last year, these importations have amounted to over $2,500,000 from the neighbouring republic. Let me give you in detail one or two of the items to which I have just adverted. In bacon and hams in 1896, we imported from the United States $143,000 worth, last year the importations of these articles, which, I claim, we ought to reserve the full benefit of for ourselves, amounted to over $650,000 worth, in barrelled pork, in 1896, we imported $270,000 worth, and, in 1902, we imported over $580,000 worth. What we claim and what has been claimed in the uniform manner by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, is that the time has come

for us not, as my right hon. friend has said, to adopt a policy of 49 per cent protection, and not as he said to preach one doctrine in one part of the country and another doctrine in the far west-we would be acting like hon. gentlemen opposite if we did that -but to preach the doctrine throughout the country, as my hon. friend the leader of the opposition did in his memorable tour, of building up our own country, and, if we find a great and powerful community like the United States reaching the acme of prosperity, reaching the height of wealth which they have reached under a high tariff, not to sacrifice our own country to them, but to keep our own resources for ourselves and for our people and to take the means that may be necessary to achieve that end. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition lias never advocated any other doctrine but that either in this House nor anywhere else ; and I am surprised at my right hon. friend speaking as he does. But perhaps he may be excused, because of absence from the country at the time of the memorable tour was made as far as British Columbia by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, for not knowing what everybody else knows and recognizes-that, whatever may be the reproaches cast upon my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) there was one unstinted praise accorded to him by everybody, and that praise was for his sincerity and for the sameness of his professions in every part of the country.
What did the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Borden) say in this House ?
Now, I do not say that our policy should be framed on any principle of retaliation of tariffs

How is that for my right hon. friend who claimed that the member from Halifax laid down a distinct doctrine of a 49 per cent tariff or any other fixed percentage of duty ?
I absolutely and decidedly dissent from that. I do say that our tariff should he framed from the standpoint of the Canadian people and with a view to the preservation of the Canadian market for the Canadian people themselves.
That is the doctrine laid down by my hon. friend and followed uniformly by every one of us on this side of the House. Does my right hon. friend or any of his colleagues pretend that in his tour throughout the country the hon. member for Halifax, the leader of His Majesty's loyal opposition at any time laid down a different principle ? Let them, at least, if that is their contention, quote some word from my hon. friend in any of his addresses to the people of this country showing that he proceeded on any different principle from that, or laid down in the passage of his speech that I have just quoted. And, at Victoria, what do we find my hon. friend from Halifax declaring, speaking there as the mouthpiece of those who sit on this side of the House ? He said :
It is a matter of adequate protection

That is not what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) takes pleasure in sneering at as he sneered here at Sir Charles Tupper's contention that we should have a preferential tariff arrangement with the mother country-but saw fit to entirely reverse his position with great humility and with ashes on his head when he went to the interimperial conference. The hon. member for Halifax, speaking at Victoria, went on :
That is a policy which is held to he the policy of the Liberal-Conservative party. That is the pronounced and declared policy of the people of this country-adequate protection of Canadian industries, a protection which will ensure to Canadians of this country their own markets at all prices and under all circumstances.
That is real patriotism, and we never contended for any other policy so far as I am aware. I defy my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance to quote a single instance of a speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, in which he propounded any different idea. The leader of the opposition came west and I had the pleasure of meeting him and those who accompanied him in the city of Winnipeg. We found out there that my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) was not the great Bonaparte of the west that we had been taught to believe him. But what I wish to call your attention and the attention of this House to, in view of the declaration, accompanied with a certain amount of ridicule, made by my right hon. friend the leader of the government, is the language used by the hon. member for Halifax in his reported speech at the banquet which was tendered to him in the city of Winnipeg :
The policy of the Conservative party was a policy of adequate protection, Canadian pro-tectipn ; and would it not be an estimable benefit if the lead mines, the gold mines, the iron mines, and other industries were developed ? His party held no brief from any corporation, he believed that it received less support from the manufacturers than had the Liberal party during the last four years.
I am able fully to confirm that view expressed by my hon. friend.
He supported protection because he believed it to he in the interests of the whole people of Canada. He wished to have the support of the North-west, but he absolutely refused to ask for that support by advocating a different doctrine to that which he advocated in other parts of Canada, notwithstanding the taunts which had been thrown out by his political opponents.
These remarks, Sir, made by my hon. friend in Winnipeg, in that province which, I am happy to say, is as anxious as we are in the east to build up a great and powerful commonwealth, these remarks he repeated at Lethbridge and everywhere else in the province of Manitoba. My hon. friend the

leader of tlie opposition said also in that province :
So far as' our policy is concerned, we are not afraid to avow it in the east or in the west. It is the same everywhere. Our policy is that of adequate protection to all legitimate industries in Canada.
My hon. friend is more than right when he says that he has strong support for that view, which I venture to say will ultimately become the view of all those who desire the advancement of our country. He has strong support for It on the treasury benches where, as stated by my right hon. friend, people are free to entertain any opinion they like, and his mission is to bring them all together, and out of that chaos to evolve something which is satisfactory to the country. My hon. friend the present member from Maisonneuve, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Pre-fontaine), whom I am glad to see in his place this evening, stated there that if any man had anything to complain of in respect to the tariff-and his speech was reported verbatim in one of his own organs- or if any legitimate industry could establish a claim for greater protection, he was prepared for his own part to confer with his colleagues in the cabinet and give them all the protection they wanted. The speech from the Throne does not refer to tariff matters specially. Sir, I claim in contradiction to what was said by my hon. friends who moved and seconded the address, that there is a feeling at present throughout the country, of which we would have been glad and the country at large would have been glad, to find mention in that ministerial programme of the session. We would have been glad to see that legislation was foreshadowed to carry out the idea that we must prepare to protect ourselves by law against the invasion of our markets by men more powerful than ourselves, and against the waste of the great natural resouuces given to us by Providence, and which it is our mission to make the most of as a young people.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot for my own part entirely agree with what my hon. friends have said in regard to immigration. I believe it is in the interest of this country that it should be settled, I believe that we should favour the advent to our country of men who are anxious to form part of our great commonwealth and to do their duty as citizens. But I do not believe in the present policy of the government in regard to immigration; and I would have been glad to hear in the speech from the Throne some announcement of a change in that policy which has been followed for too many years. We spend too much money in bringing people to this country without discrimination as to their character, as to whether they are fit to become inhabitants. For instance, I do not believe that it has been a prudent or proper step on the part-Mr. MONK.
of this government to spend so large a sum of money, over a hundred thousand dollars, to bring here a set of people like the Douk-hobors, who, while we were travelling in the North-west, were leaving their settlements and picking up rocks, and stones, and stumps of trees, in order to find the Messiah on the plains of the North-west. I believe that most of the money we spend at the present moment on immigration agencies, and there is far too much spent, would be better employed in keeping our own people at home, in preventing' the exodus, and in offering facilities to our own people to settle in those boundless and wealthy plains of the west.
Sir, I listened attentively to the right hon. leader of this House when he spoke in regard to the colonial conference. It seems quite apparent from what we find in the English blue-book, and from what we know of the results of that conference, that it has achieved very little of a practical nature. It is no doubt a great advantage for the people of this vast empire, living under the same flag, to confer together, for representatives of the great colonies such as Canada and Australia to meet in conference. But I think that we on this side of the House have a right to expect something more definite as a result of that conference to our own country. Thus, the steps taken by the hon. Minister of Finance and those who accompanied him on that distant mission in so far as the very important question of a preference is concerned, resulted in absolutely nothing. There was no result. I find on page 10 of the English blue-book that:
The representatives of the colonies are prepared to recommend to their respective parliaments preferential treatment of British goods on the following lines :-Canada-
That is ourselves.
The existing preference of 33$ per cent and an additional preference on lists of selected articles

That is what my hon. friend the Minister of Finance was prepared, as I understand it, to advocate as Canada's share-the maintenance of the present preference and an additional preference on certain selected articles.
(a)	By further reducing the duties in favour of the United Kingdom ;
(b)	By raising the duties against foreign imports ;
(c)	By imposing duties on certain foreign imports now on the free list.
The real, practical, tangible result is nothing. We have no intimation from the government of any intention of carrying out that pledge mentioned on page 10 of the blue-book nor as to how they intend to implement that promise. There was no question of the embargo upon our cattle, a most unjust measure. Did they attempt, or achieve, anything as regards the removal of

that most unfair and most unjust impediment to our trade ? Nothing. No result. It seems to me that our friends might have availed themselves of the opportunity of that conference to urge upon the government of Great Britain some scheme, some plan, by which a great dependency, such as our own, might have had additional facilities, additional means of approaching to the sovereign power when it is a question of concluding commercial treaties in which this country is interested. Nothing in that regard. As regards the Alaskan boundary treaty with which my right lion, friend is so perfectly satisfied, I listened vainly to hear my right lion, friend make a distinct statement as to whether his government recommended that form of settlement of the difficulty or whether they did not do so. Do they recommend it ?' Have they taken any steps to secure upon that tribunal, or commission, or arbitration board, or whatever it may be called, the presence of two jurists at least from our own country, and what steps have they taken to secure that end, if any ; For my own part, Sir, what I respectfully submit to this House in regard to that most important matter is this: It may be that the tract of land as to which the dispute exists is net of very great value, but as far as I have been able to understand the very able arguments uttered and printed in favour of the Canadian contention, we are greatly interested in securing some of those bays which extend into the disputed territory as an outlet to the sea from that great Yukon territory which is known to be so valuable. Now, Sir, do my hon. friends think that, with such a commission as has been named and with, as is intimated to us, the presence upon that commission of two men who may be very estimable American citizens, but who are no doubt one-sided upon this question, they have taken every measure or precaution to protect our interests? The right lion, leader of the government laid great stress upon the fact that in respect to the proposal that when they submitted the Venezuelan difficulty there was a stipulation that the position occupied by those whose interests were adverse to our own would not be sacrificed in any event, and that by his efforts they had secured in the present treaty the obliteration of that obnoxious clause, but, how are we to couple that great claim made by the right hon. gentleman with the statement he made when he touched upon this subject that this commission was a commission of legal men named in order to determine where the limits were ? I ask this House whether if that, being the nature of a commission, it would have been very dignified for us to allow a stipulation to be made in the treaty that whatever might be the finding of the investigating commission, Skagway and such other ports as are at present in the hands of our American neighbours should under all circumstances remain therein. It 3



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
seems to me that the claim that they have secured a great advantage for us is not one which this House will readily accept, but, what I am anxious to see, Mr. Speaker, is some proof of the steps taken by this government at the time of the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and also when this present treaty was under negotiation, to secure full protection to our rights. I moved, if my memory serves me right, last year, for the production of the correspondence that had taken place between this government and the imperial government in regard to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, and I think I am right in saying that the motion was denied me. When the correspondence relating to that treaty, in which, perhaps, as my lion, friend at my right (Mr. Borden, Halifax) says, we have no practical interest, but, which may have been used as a powerful lever to help a useful solution of the Alaskan boundary difficulty, when the correspondence which will be brought down, as has been promised to my hon. friend, and when further correspondence in relation to this treaty is before us, we will be in a better position to see exactly what steps have been taken to secure our rights in that most important matter.
Mr. Speaker, I confess to some astonishment at the announcement made by the right hon. leader of the government that nothing has yet been determined by the government and that there is nothing which the government can lay before this House in regard to the additional facilities for transportation across the continent which are referred to in a dim and indefinite way in the speech from the Throne. I think I am not mistaken in stating that it is over three months ago that the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) intimated to the public that some scheme was under consideration, and it was viewed favourably by himself, to give us a new route across the continent. Since that time we have had discussions galore throughout the press in this country. We have seen the head men of the two great railways existing in this country discussing publicly under what conditions these additional facilities are to be given to the country, and I think it is a fair matter of regret for us to see when we are summoned together that the government of this country, at this present moment, with a prospect of a long session before us has determined nothing definite whatever in regard to these additional facilities and cannot say when the commission, which is referred to in the speech from the Throne, will make its report, or whether the government will wait for the report or not, before it lays a definite scheme before parliament.
My right hon. friend closed his remarks by referring to the necessity of remedying an injustice in respect to the distribution of seats which took place years ago. As a proof of that injustice, he spoke of some

[Stage Direction]
of the results of the last federal elections In the province of Ontario ; but my right hon. friend glided with a light step over the far more extraordinary phenomenon presented In the province of Ontario by which a government is returned to power in that province, which as a matter of fact has a minority of over 7,000 of the popular vote. That would appear to be a far greater injustice than anything that has ever happened in the federal arena. Nor did my right hon. friend see fit to refer in any way whatever to the far more deplorable spectacle of recent date, whereby the government of Ontario, in order to maintain its life and existence, has had recourse to methods which are not always discovered, but which we have seen practiced by the Liberal party, not only in the province of Ontario but in the province of Quebec and elsewhere. We have seen them, Sir, in the province of Ontario and elsewhere, maintaining themselves in power by a system of corruption which prevents, odiously prevents the free will of the people from being given expression to in this young country.
Mr. JOHN CHAKLTON (North Norfolk).: I do not rise, Sir, for the purpose of engaging in a discussion of the tariff in connection with this debate on the address, be lieving as I do that such a discusison at this moment is premature. I have consequently no criticism to make upon the points made by my hon. friend from .Jacques Cartier. In many respects, of course, I sympathize with the views that gentleman entertains, but circumstances may arise and are likely to arise in the near future which will convince us that discussion of the tariff, or action upon the tariff is not advisable at the present time. We may find that we have not a proper knowledge of the premises that will exist, and that consequently we are not in a position to take the action which we will be required to take when we know exactly what the conditions are. Should we have a meeting of the Joint High Commission, it is evident to any member who will examine the facts that the result of a meeting of that commission will determine to a great extent the character of the fiscal legislation of this parliament. In case a favourable treaty was obtained with the United States, so far as I am concerned, my views would be quite different with regard to this matter, from what my views would be should the United States persist in continuing the policy that has been in force in that country for the last 35 years. In the latter case I would co-operate earnestly and heartily with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier, and with those who believe as he does in regard to this matter. On the contrary, if the policy of the United States were to be reversed ; if their policy towards this country were to assume a liberal character ; if we were to enter upon fiscal relations with that country satisfac-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: tory to ourselves ; then, of course, the policy that I would favour would be quite different from the policy I would favour in the other case. I think it is not profitable or necessary to enter upon or to continue the tariff discussion upon the debate on this address. I do not think that the House is in possession of the information which would put it in a position to deal with this matter, to take action upon the fiscal policy of Canada as it ought to do ; and consequently I pass over the discussion of the tariff question for the reason, that so far as I myself am concerned, I am not able to say where we shall land, what the conditions will be, what will confront us, what course it will be proper for us to take. Our course will necessarily be 'governed by the conditions that will hereafter arise, and in my opinion we had better wait until these conditions develop themselves. So much for the tariff.
Now, I do not know, Mr. Speaker, that I should have risen at all on this occasion but for the desire I have to make a few remarks upon a certain phase of sentiment in this country, and upon a certain disposition manifested in certain quarters in this country which I think is regrettable, in reference to our international relations. It is quite common in Canada to criticise with some severity, often with a good deal of severity, the action of Great Britain with regard to this Dominion. Now, we should remember, Sir, that so far as Great Britain is concerned, so far as we ourselves are concerned, it is a matter of primary importance to maintain good relations with that great branch of the Anglo Saxon family to the south of us. That is especially the case with Great Britain. Great Britain has world wide interests ; interests that do not centre primarily and chiefly in Canada ; but interests that spread over the whole broad face of the world. Great Britain has interests in Canada, and I believe that Great Britain, so far as her policy towards Canada is concerned, has discharged her duty to this country faithfully and in such a way as to merit our thanks and approval. But we may, we naturally do magnify the importance of our own issues and of our own interests. We may, and we do sometimes think that England should sacrifice everything for the maintenance of same comparatively unimportant claim or interest that we think a great deal of. In the past, England has stood by our interests faithfully, in my opinion. In the past I do not think we have just reasons for complaint against the policy that Great Britain has pursued with regard to these colonies or this Dominion. For this reason, I think that England is often unjustly accused of failing to stand by our interests with that persistence and with that disregard of consequences that some expect she ought to do. It is a matter of primary importance to Great Britain, I repeat, to maintain good re-

lations witli the United States. We perhaps do not realize how important that is. We do not realize how completely that is a factor governing the position of England and the conduct of England with regard to questions arising between these two countries. Consequently, Sir, we should deal with these questions in a temperate spirit. We should deal with these questions with a full knowledge of the facts. We should deal with these questions, giving to England the benefit, when we are forming our judgment, of their environment, of the necessities that confront her, and of the difficulties that surround her. If we were to do this, perhaps in some cases our judgment would be modified to a very great extent.
In the course of the admirable speech of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition this afternoon, I noticed his remarks with reference to the Clayton-Bulwer treaty. As the position which my hon. friend took upon that matter has not been replied to, his remarks might go to the country with his assertions uncontradicted. The abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty was an unpopular move in the estimation of the Canadian public, no doubt. That treaty had existed for a good many years. It imposed restrictions and conditions upon the United States with regard to various matters that the public men of all parties in that country chafed under. It was a source of difficulty and created conditions of a threatening character. By the abrogation of that treaty Great Britain gave to the United States a free hand in the construction of the Isthmian canal; and, following the conditions which the abrogation of the treaty created, the United States have proceeded to take the initial steps towards the construction of the canal by the Panama route. Now, the question is, had Canada any reason or any right to say to the United States, you shall not construct that canal ? Were we ready to construct it ? Was Great Britain ready to construct it? Was the United States, in offering to construct that canal, trenching upon our rights or upon any scheme we cherished for opening communication between the waters of the Carribean sea, and the Pacific ocean ? We have interests, of course, on both the Atlantic and the Pacific, and if we had been prepared to connect the two oceans by an Isthmian canal, there certainly would have been more reason for our finding fault with the arrangement made for the abrogation of the treaty. The United States possesses fifteen times our population; it possesses more than twenty-five times our wealth; it lias vast interests on each coast; and its public men deemed the construction of that canal an essential requisite to the prosperity of the country and its progress in the future. It was a cherished scheme with the American people to open up what would practically be a communication between their territorial 3i
possessions on the Pacific and the Atlantic.
I was in Washington the day Lord Paunce-fote signed that treaty. I called upon his lordship, and he expressed unbounded satisfaction upon having, as one of the last official acts of his life, signed a treaty that was to set at rest a vexed question between the two great branches of the Anglo-Saxon family, and was to render improbable what would otherwise have been probable-friction, bad feeling, or a collision between the two countries.


Robert Laird Borden: Did he say anything about the Alaskan boundary at the same time ?


John Charlton: The two questions were dealt with on their own merits. The Alaskan boundary has been dealt with since ; I will reach that question soon. But I will say, in answer to my hon. friend that Lord Pauncefote was not in a position to dictate to the United States government what their course of conduct should be ; and if they were unwilling to couple the Alaskan boundary with the settlement of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty question, I do not suppose Lord Pauncefote had it in his power to compel them to meet his wishes, and I doubt whether it would have been a politic thing for him to terminate the negotiations because he could not have his way entirely. The two questions stood distinct from each other, and were treated on distinct bases.
With regard to the Alaskan boundary question, as the premier told us this afternoon, the Joint High Commission at Washington in 1899 were unable to agree upon that question. It was the difficulty which broke up the sittings of the commission. The British commissioners refused to continue negotiations unless that question was set at rest. The American commissioners desired to let it stand in abeyance and go on with the other questions which had been referred to the commission. The British commissioners refused to do that, and the commission broke up. We had tentative agreements on many points which would have given this country a fairly desirable treaty. It was a fortunate thing, however, that we did not go on, that the British commissioners terminated the sittings of the commission and went home, because the condition of sentiment in the United States to-day is so much more favourable as regards the question of concessions to Canadian interests, that we shall now, in all human probability, get a very much more favourable treaty than we could have got at that time. Consequently, the deferring of the negotiations before the Joint High Commission will prove to be entirely in the interests of Canada.
With regard to this boundary commission, I was asked by my hon. friend the lender of the opposition, if Lord Pauncefote had

insisted upon coupling the Alaskan boundary question with the question of the Olayton-Bulwer treaty. I answer no, he had the good sense not to insist upon it, because, if he had, we would have had complications and difficulties of a character the consequences of which no man could foresee. The question had dragged along for many years. At the time the Joint High Commission was in session, the American commissioners refused to entertain any proposition made by the British commissioners with regard to it. They stood on their contention and refused arbitration. It is true, they did offer to refer the question to jurists, an equal number from each country, but with the reservation that any territory then occupied by the United States-and Skagway was one of the points-should not be included in the reference. Well, the reference has at last been made with that condition eliminated, and we have a reference to a tribunal composed of three jurists from each country. It was supposed in Canada that jurists independent of politics would be cliosen by the United States, and a good deal of feeling has existed in consequence of the alleged failure of the President to make such a selection.


Robert Laird Borden: Were they not to be three impartial jurists of repute ?


John Charlton: Yes. The President of the United States, it is understood, desired or requested justices of the United States Supreme Court to act on this commission, and they refused to act upon it. That is well known.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: How ?


John Charlton: I will explain to my hon. friend privately how. It is a matter of current report; in Washington. That is a statement which I heard from one of the justices of the United States Supreme Court himself. The President was left without the ability to select the members of the commission he desired to select, for the reason that they refused to act. He might, it is true, have selected other jurists. They might have declined to act for the reasons assigned by the judges of the United States Supreme Court, namely, that if they took the position, their functions would not be strictly judicial. But this treaty had not, up to the time when it was ascertained that the justices of the Supreme Court would not act upon the commission, been ratified by the United States Senate. That ratification, it is understood, was secured through the co-operation of Senators Lodge and Turner, and but for their co-operation and assistance it never would have been ratified. Now, the President of the United States was confronted with this situation. A great deal of trouble has been experienced with the United States Senate. Treaty after treaty has been hung up by that body.


John Charlton: There are four or live reciprocity treaties, among them the Cuban treaty, which would be highly advantageous to the United States, but their ratification cannot be secured. It requires a two-third vote of the Senate to ratify a treaty, and so far, local and private interests have succeeded in preventing ratification in many instances. The question of the Alaskan boundary the administration of the United States desires to get out of the way. It is a source of irritation and danger and it is highly desirable to have it settled, and in order to get the treaty ratified and the first step taken towards the settlement of the question, it was necessary to get the support of the Senate. I am not in a position to say that Senator Lodge was promised a place on the commission if the treaty should be got through, but from the little I know about politics, no doubt the President of the United States would be anxious to secure the assistance of the only man who could get the treaty through the Senate. The treaty went through, and it is acknowledged on all hands that it went through in consequence of the support given it by Senator Lodge. Well, when the treaty was through, it was claimed that the final result had to be ratified at last by the United States Senate, that the United States Senate was a body with appellate jurisdiction, that the treaty must come before them, and would stand or fall in accordance with their decision, and it was claimed that it was a proper thing to have the body, which had the ultimate and unrestricted jurisdiction in the matter, represented on the commission. Whether that is a good contention or not it is not for me to say, but that is the contention that was made. It was contended that the United States Senate, which is the highest power in the United States, which must ratify every treaty, without whose concurrence no treaty can become law, was entitled to representation upon the Alaskan commission. That contention has been accepted by the United States, and two members of the Senate appointed, and besides these two members, Secretary Root.
I do not think it can properly be claimed that these are not all men of high character, that they are not nil of them jurists. They may not be impartial jurists.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


John Charlton: I do not suppose that there are half a dozen out of the twenty million able bodied men in the United States who would be impartial on this question. They would all stand on the American contention. But Senator Lodge has expressed opinions on the question. He expressed those opinions in an electoral contest, and my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, knows what weight should be attached to statements made on the stump. He knows they can be put into one shape and then another to meet the exigencies and circumstances. Senator Lodge, when

on tlie stump in Massachusetts, appealed to popular prejudices by making certain statements with regard to the Alaskan boundary question. But he indignantly repudiates the idea that he is not impartial, that he is impervious to reasoning, that he cannot judge the case on its merits after having heard the evidence. 1 think it would be an aspersion on his character and that we would be entirely unwarranted in supposing this to be the case. I would just as soon trust the question to Senator Lodge as to a member of the United States Supreme Court. In fact I believe he would be more likely to take an impartial view of the ease from the circumstances that as his character and his judgment and his methods have been impugned, he would be therefore more desirous to give a judicial and proper decision on the matter. The same language would apply to a large extent, if not to so great an extent, to Senator Turner of the Pacific coast. And as to Secretary Root, I am unable to understand how the slightest exception can be taken to his serving on the commission. The matter, so far as we are concerned, is in this shape. I presume we all desire to have this question eliminated fr m the great questions that promise difficulties and friction between the two countries. We have in our hands the choice of commissioners, and it should be our duty to select the very best men we have, as the leader of the opposi-( tion has said. We want to set the Americans the example of giving the best jurists we have in the British empire to sit on that commission.


William Findlay Maclean: Why do not they set us an example ?


John Charlton: They do.


William Findlay Maclean: When-in Canadian
matters ?


John Charlton: I do not know that we are in a position to dictate to the United States the course they should pursue or to give an opinion as to who is fit to sit on that commission or who is not. We are dealing with a nation of SO,000,000 people and we are but a nation of 5,000,000 to 6,000,000. Great Britain is anxious to maintain friendly relations with that people, and for us to say that these men are not satisfactory would defeat the consummation desired and put an end to all negotiations. We may regret that men not entirely acceptable to us were not appointed, but it is not for us to say who should be appointed, and we are deficient in the sense of proportion when we suppose that five million people can dictate to eighty million the course they should pursue. Whether we be satisfied with the commission or not, there are circumstances which, in the opinion of the United States, have rendered it proper and desirable and politic to appoint these men on that commission, and we are prejudging the case
when we assume that they are not fit to perform the functions and not capable of giving an impartial decision. I am sorry myself that the Supreme Court judges of the United States declined to act. I am sorry the commission is not one that suits our purposes and desires, but it is a matter for the United States to select their own commissioners to attempt to adjust, and I hope and anticipate a favourable and satisfactory result from the appointment of this commission.
My hon. friend the leader of the opposition quoted to us this afternoon a large number of extracts from American papers with regard to the character of the commission and the views entertained by the commissioners. Well, I do not attach a very great degree of importance to extracts from American, or Canadian newspapers either, for that matter. Editors, sitting in their sanctums, write with an air of supreme wisdom and authority, but they are often very much mistaken, and I look at the matter from a broader standpoint than the opinion of editor this or that, or any other scribbler in an editorial sanctum, who prejudges the case himself and imagines he knows all about it. Of course I do not intend any reflections on any editor present. Present company is always excepted. But what I say is that these quotations from American newspapers are entirely unreliable and not worthy of consideration.


William Findlay Maclean: Hew does the hon. gentleman prove that there is a better feeling in the United States towards Canada.


John Charlton: It is a self evident fact.


William Findlay Maclean: In the press, I suppose ?


John Charlton: I do not know that Canadian papers, even the one managed by my hon. friend opposite, are an exception to the rule. I notice often a tone which 1 greatly regret-very flippant, cynical and unfair-with regard to things American, which does not elevate the paper in my opinion and certainly does not tend to create good feeling. And that thing, to some extent, has existed in the United States. The tone of the Canadian newspapers I know, produces irritation, and those who desire better relations between the two countries look upon this matter with regret. And I can say, Sir,-and I think that perhaps no person in this House is better able to give an opinion on the subject than myself-that the sentiment in the United States towards Canada is rapidly growing more friendly, and that their ideas as to the relation between these countries have grown broader and more correct during the last three years than they were before, that the knowledge of Canada, the absence of which gave them false ideas, as to the relations of the countries previous to that time is growing. And I believe it is to our in-

terest to cultivate friendly relations and ascertain how far that growth of sentiment favourable to Canada in the United States will lead, and whether the outcome may not be something desirable. If we find we cannot get it, if we find that there is not a feeling in the United States friendly to Canada sufficiently potent to bring about favourable relations, it will be time to take the position that many parties in this country assume it is best to take by prejudging the case now.
So far as the other points made by my bon. fi'iend from Jacques Cartier are concerned I do not know that it is necessary to allude to them now. As I said at the outset, I think it is premature to discuss the fiscal policy of this country. I rose, as 1 have said, for the purpose of correcting what I considered to be misapprehensions with regard to matters that require delicate handling and that can be best understood when regarded in the spirit of fairness and concession.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).: Mr. Speaker, I do not purpose speaking at length upon the various subjects that have been brought up in this debate, but I wish to say a few words upon the subject of the imperial conference.
I may say at the outset that the view I take of this matter is just the opposite of that expressed by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden) and his first lieutenant, the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). Both these gentlemen have expressed the opinion that the results of that conference were very poor. Of course one's opinion would depend altogether on the point of view taken at the commencement of the conference last year. Those who founded hopes on the past attitude of the British parliament or the British government, and upon the past attitude of the Canadian parliament or the parliaments of other British colonies, may be disappointed. But those who, all through the discussion of imperial progress that has been going on for the last three or four years, have entertained the hope that the moment will soon come when the true principles of real British imperialism will take hold of the common sense of the people, have no reason to be disappointed. For my part, I entirely agree with these words that have been put into the mouth of His Excellency :
I feel assured that much good will result from bringing the leading public men of the great self governing colonies into direct contact with each other and with the statesmen of the motherland.
That bringing together has been the means of clearing the clouds, the delusive clouds, that have been raised by the conference of 1S97 as well as by the South African war. Colonial statesmen have had reason to see that the only practical British imperialism, as it existed in the Mr. CHARLTON.
mind of Mr. Chamberlain and his associates, meant simply and solely a contribution by the colonies to the British army and navy with a few compliments here and there to satisfy them in return. And British statesmen have been made to understand that we have passed the period of excitement, to which I do not wish to refer now, when popular feelings were aroused to the highest pitch by excited speeches .of public men in this country as well as in other parts of the British empire. Then perhaps the British public and the British parliament had been led to understand that we were ready to sacrifice something of our autonomy and self government, and of the respect we owe to the past and the future of our country; but now those delusions have been dissolved by the firm, discreet and dignified attitude of the colonial statesmen and especially the statesmen of Australia and Canada.
In that report which has given so little satisfaction to the hon. leader of the opposition and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier there are many interesting things. I have read that document with care, and I have found that though, in the resolutions adopted, very little of new policy is proposed for Great Britain or the colonies, yet, a good deal of common sense understanding has been arrived at between the imperial authorities and the colonial authorities. 1 must, however, express immediately my dissent from one decision which was arrived at unanimously by the members of that conference-and in this I agree with the leader of the opposition. I mean that the discussions of the conference had better been made public at once, and that a full report of the discussion should have been published ; especially when I see that a motion was proposed and adopted unanimously that like conferences should be held every fourth year. If the colonial representatives are to meet the representatives of the British government to discuss matters of imperial interests. I hold that the principle should be laid down at once- at the very least it should be insisted upon by the Canadian parliament as well as by other self-respecting parliaments of the British empire-that no discussion that may have as a result a change of policy of the empire shall be carried on in secret. I think it should be a well understood principle of imperial conference that the people of the British empire at large should know from day to day what is going on among their representatives.
The speech that was delivered at the opening of that conference by the Colonial Secretary is a very interesting one, as all the utterances of that statesman are. And I think it is quite illustrative of what I said at the opening of these remarks as to the real aims of the British imperialists, and the real meaning of British imperialism as it exists in the mind of Mr. - MARCH 13, 1903
Chamberlain. As the hon. member for Jacques Cartier says, Mr. Chamberlain referred to three main subjects that were to be discussed-the political relations, the military relations, and the commercial relations. So far as the political relations are concerned, he thought that we should allow matters to more very slowly indeed. As to the military relations, he thought the time had come when the colonies should tax themselves to contribute to the British army and navy. But in commercial matters, he thought that Great Britain could do nothing for the colonies unless the colonies should adopt a policy that, admittedly, it would be suicidal for them to adopt.
As I have said, the only resolution that was adopted, so far as political relations were concerned, was one in favor of a conference being held every fourth year between representatives of the colonies and of the British government. I may say at once that I have no objection to conferences being held when they are required. But I say that no Canadian statesman should leave the soil of Canada to represent the Canadian people in any assembly of that kind, without having previously stated clearly to the people of Canada what policy he was prepared to support, what propositions he was ready to make or to oppose. Before leaving Canada on such a mission, Canadian statesmen should have from this parliament a clear mandate to guide them, which should definitely point out what conduct they are to pursue. That is what was done last session by this government, that is what was done by the government of Australia on the last occasions ; but unfortunately that was not done before the conference of 1897.
On the ground of military relations, the right hon. leader of the government stated this afternoon that propositions were made by the British government for contributions by the colonies in support of the army and navy. These propositions were strongly supported by the first Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Selborne, and by the Secretary of War, Mr. Brodrick. The Prime Minister of New Zealand supported Mr. Chamberlain on this occasion and moved two resolutions, found on pages 9 and 27. of the blue book, one referring to the army and the other to the navy. The reply of the Canadian government was exactly what was expected of it by the Canadian people. This afternoon we heard from the member for Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) the conclusion of that reply, and I will read to the House the first paragraph, which indicates still more clearly the position of the Canadian government:
The Canadian ministers regret that they have been unable to assent to the suggestions made by Lord Selborno respecting the navy, and by Mr. St. John Brodrick respecting the army. The ministers desire to point out that their objections arise, not so much from the expense involved, as from a belief that the acceptance
of the proposals would entail an important departure from the principle of colonial selfgovernment. Canada values highly the measure of local Independence which has been granted it from time to time by the imperial authorities, and which has been so productive of beneficial results, both as respects the material progress of the country and the strengthening of the ties that bind it to the motherland. But while, for these reasons, the Canadian ministers are obliged to withhold their assent to the propositions of the Admiralty and the War Office, they fully appreciate the duty of the Dominion, as it advances in population and wealth, to make more liberal outlays for those necessary preparations of self defence which every country has to assume and bear.
To this, Mr. Speaker, no Canadian has any objection to make. For my part I may say tliat as long as tlie Canadian government remains within the bounds fixed by themselves on this occasion, they will receive my hearty support. But the course is not yet clear. Every one knows that Mr. Chamberlain is not a man to abandon, upon the first repulse, any scheme upou which he lias set bis heart. Even recently, during bis trip to South Africa where he went to enlighten himself upon some problems which, unfortunately for bis country and tlie honor of tlie empire, lie did not study sc-me three or four years ago, be has thought proper to address what X may call a lesson of warning to the other self-governing colonies, stating that they must realize what tlieir duties are. The Minister of Militia and Defence, since liis return from tlie old country, has clearly stated upon two or three occasions what he thought the duty of Canada was in regard to defence. With the general tone of his argument I agree entirely. I would have no objection whatever to the Canadian government taking hold, for example, of the fortifications of Esquimault and Halifax, and relieving tlie British government of the expense of defending those fortifications. I have no objection whatever, on the contrary I am desirous that the Minister of Militia and Defence should, take steps to put the Canadian militia upon a proper footing, provided always that he sticks to the principle he has laid down himself that these preparations and this expense are made with the sole view of enabling Canadians to defend the soil of Canada. Well, Sir, in the very report we have here, In tlie paper which was presented to the conference from Col. Al-tliam, Assistant Quartermaster General, we find these paragraphs.
In the event of war with the United States it is oil this Canadian militia that must depend the entire safety of Canada until reinforcements arrive from England. It may, therefore, be concluded that the best way in which Canada can co-operate in imperial defence is by making her militia an efficient force. It is more important that the Canadian ministers should he strongly pressed to take this reasonable precaution than that they should maintain

contingents for general imperial service. . . . The strategical position of Canada makes it however, unwise that any very large contingent should be drawn from her defence force unless the strength of that force should in the future be increased. It is suggested therefore that if a Canadian imperial force be organized, it should be limited, for the present, to a brigade division of field artillery and a brigade of infantry. The force might be organized on lines similar to those suggested for Australia.
So we find in a report from one of tlie officers of the British army, made at the request of the British Minister of War, who was so anxious to obtain a permanent contribution from Canada, that the only safe way in which Canada could contribute to the defence of the empire was by looking alter her own militia and keeping her soldiers at home.
But as I have already said, we must not be too confident. True, the wind has changed, and I am glad of it. There are many people now in Canada saying exactly what I said some three years ago. But when .we speak of the defence of Canada, even then we should not lose our heads, and should not ask the Canadian people to make a large expenditure of money upon the organization of their militia without having some idea of what that militia would be required for. In one of the speeches that we find coming from the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden) he has gone a little farther than that. He has gone to the point of saying. if we are to believe the reports of his speech published in the Canadian papers, that not only should we organize a proper militia force for the defence of this country but that we should put it upon such a footing that in case of an imperial war we would have an army ready to go to the defence of the empire elsewhere also.


The MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden).: I was not correctly reported.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am glad to have given the hon. minister an opportunity to deny that report, because it was received with confidence by some people in Canada. Some few years ago General French made a similar suggestion under the inspiration of the enthusiasm then prevailing in the colonies. To quote his own language, he said : Having had an experience of a dozen years in Canada, and a similar amount in Australia, mostly with colonial forces, I would like to make two points clear : (1) It is idle to hope or expect that any large force of imperial troops, paid at imperial rates, could be raised in these colonies for ordinary garrison work or duties in peace time. (2) It is equally certain that thousands of men can be raised in war time, who will engage for the war at a fair rate of pay.
The real way, in my opinion, to help Old England to keep the flag flying all over the empire is to form war reserves in the colonies. In doing so the specialities of the colonies


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: should be borne in mind. Thus Canada, with her 75,000 sailors and fishermen on the Atlantic seaboard, should provide a large war reserve for the fleet, and probably would do so if the Admiralty, instead of framing cast-iron regulations suitable for Great Britain, would appreciate the fact that the most suitable time to carry out the training of these fishermen would be the time of year when they could not carry on their usual avocations.
According to General French and several other authorities in England, the best way to carry out their scheme is not to go further with a straight demand or request from the colonies and from Canada in particular to supply them either with contributions or an organized imperial corps to be at the disposal of the imperial government; but the scheme is to stir up the spirit of militarism, to increase the number of the militia, to create a large naval reserve and thereby to have always a prepared ground in order to fill the deficiencies which they find increasing every day in then-army and navy. We have seen a delegate from the Navy League of England who came to Canada to organize a branch of the league. Of course, I suppose gentlemen who have been lately in England knew that the Navy League is not taken very seriously in the old country; in fact, I might say it is considered a little ridiculous, and therefore I do not think that by joining the league several of our nubile men have acted very judiciously.- But if the matter is going to be no more ridiculous, it is simply because it will become obnoxious. The now avowed purpose of that league is to come and find in the colonies the men for the army and the navy which the people of Great Britain refuse to supply. Seeing that they cannot find among the English and Scotch population the required recruits for the army and navy, their purpose is to come into the colonies to further the sentiment of militarism, to work upon some of that imperial sentiment which was raised by the South African war, in order to find amongst the sturdy population of the colonies what they cannot find at home. Therefore, as far as that matter is concerned, though I do not imagine that great results will come out of it, I regret to see that the names of four of our ministers are connected with it. In one of the reports it was said that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was the honorary president and the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence was the ice-president; in another report the positions were reversed, the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence being at the head, and the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries coming after. Perhaps it is that the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries was not quite ready yet to take the lead of the army and navy and I have no doubt that the league has relied more on the soldierly disposition of the Minister for War. I also find the names of the hon. Minister of

Justice (Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick) and the bon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher). I would simply beg of these two gentlemen to wait a little before going into the Navy League. I would ask the hon. Minister of Justice to wait and see what the result will be of the Alaskan tribunal, to wait and see what is the policy of the British government as regards Canadian interests towards the United States, before he shows too much zeal for the British navy; and I would ask the hon. Minister of Agriculture to await the results of our efforts to have the embargo removed from Canadian cattle before he accepts any high position in the navy of the empire.


William Findlay Maclean: The fishermen ought to be in the navy.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I may say that the whole movement, as far as military defence is concerned, and as far as British interests in that defence are concerned, may be summed up as an imperialistic policy as Lord Rosebery put it so well some nine years ago when he left the Liberal party and before he made up his mind to become himself one of the upholders of the imperialistic movement. The British government have trebled the area of the empire and have therefore increased in a great way the burdens of the British people as far as military defence is concerned. The land owners of England stick to the most stubborn and the most antiquated land tenure which now exists in any civilized country. They have been the cause of depopulating the farming districts of England, of sending to the colonies the most energetic and intelligent men of the kingdom, and of dividing the others between the skilled labourers and the inhabitants of the slums of the big cities. The skilled labourers and farm labourers will not enter the army and navy ; and therefore the British authorities have to rely on the slums to supply recruits for the army and navy, and British politicians are scared at the idea of adopting the only jmlicy that is possible for an imperial country which is bent upon conquest and the acquisition of territory, and that is conscription. Now, because of the indifference or incapacity of the British people, because of the selfishness of the British land owners, because of the timidity of the British politicians, we, the settlers of the colonies, we, who have so many sacrifices ahead of us yet to make in order to develop our country and to contribute to the real glory of the empire, we would be bound to make up for these deficiencies and to bleed ourselves in order to do what the British people are either unable or unwilling to do.
Now, Sir, as far as the requirements of defence in Canada are concerned, without giving any advice to the Minister of Militia, I simply say this : That as Colonel Altham says, and as any man who is a little observant of the politics of the world would say, the only enemy which Canada may possibly have to confront is the United States. Is the hon. minister, or is any man of common sense in this House, prepared to say that by increasing our militia by 25,000 or by 50,000 men, we are going to lessen the danger of invasion by the United States V We might benefit by that increase for a fortnight cr for a month, but when every one knows that the state of New York alone could throw upon the soil of Canada as many soldiers as we could enlist to defend our frontier from Halifax to_Victoria, it is just as well we should not lose our heads when we speak of defending ourselves against the United States-even with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Gourley) and his whole family in the trenches. As to a war with the United States being caused by Canada, is there any government either Conservative or Liberal that would act so foolishly as to bring about such a calamity upon the people of Canada ? And so far as the motherland is concerned, when we see that year after year our interests in connection with the United States have been sacrificed by the imperial government in order to secure the friendship of the United States, we need not be too much excited as to the danger of war between Canada and the American republic. Sir, if the day should come when we shall be able to withstand an attack from the United States, it will be when we have developed our resources, and increased our population; and the best way for us to do that is not to induce the young men of Canada to enter the militia or the navy, either British or Canadian; not by expending the money of the people upon military preparations; but it is by devoting every cent we can take from the people to develop Canadian industries, Canadian agriculture, Canadian manufactures, Canadian transportation, thus increasing in so far as we can the population and wealth of the country. That is the best way to contribute to the defence of Canada; it is the best way to contribute to the defence of the empire, and it is the way by which we will prove that we are not only true Canadians, but also true imperialists in the real sense of the word.
Now, Sir, in so far as trade relations are concerned, I may say that I was pleased at the position taken by our delegate at the imperial conference. In his opening address, the Right Hon. Mr. Chamberlain referred in a somewhat patronizing way to the policy which had been adopted by Canada towards the motherland in trade matters. He said that, of course, as a matter of sentiment lie was quite happy that Canada had adopted a preferential policy, but he intimated in so many words that he did not care much for it. I am very glad that the Canadian representatives gave the proper answer to the Colonial Secretary when they said:

If after using every effort to bring about such a readjustment of the fiscal policy of the empire, the Canadian government should find that the principle of preferential trade is not acceptable to the colonies generally, or the mother country, then Canada should be free to take such action as might be deemed necessary in the presence of such conditions. 1
The leader of the opposition has found fault with this reply. lie says that it was not clear enough, that it did not intimate the course that the Canadian government was going to follow. Well, Sir, it is not too strongly expressed to say that It would have been a piece of impudence on the part of our representatives to announce the policy of the Canadian parliament to the Colonial Secretary without coming back to Canada and taking parliament into their confidence before deciding what course they were going to follow. The language of the reply of the Canadian representatives is exactly what it should have been. It intimated to the British government that under a change of conditions, the position of the British government being different from what it was when we adopted our preferential policy, that the Canadian government would remain free to adopt whatever course it thought best. Of course, I am not in a position of a minister of the Crown, and consequently I may express my opinion more candidly, and so I say that in the face of the declaration of the Colonial Secretary, in the face of the liow clear policy of the British government not to sacrifice one iota of their foreign trade in favour of the British colonies, I hope the time is not far distant when we will prove to the British people that we are as much attached to our interests as they are to theirs; and if we do not repeal immediately the preferential treatment of British goods, 1 hope we will at least come back to the common-sense policy that was adopted by this government in 189T, when they offered the preference to any country which would give in return fair trade arrangements with Canada. That was a true liberal policy. That was a true liberal stand to take, when we said that we were ready to deal on fair terms with any country, foreign or British, that was ready to deal on fair terms with us. Under a wave of loyalty, we changed that policy; but having come back to our senses, we should also come back to that common-sense policy as originally adopted in 1S97.
The hon. member for Jacques Cartier has found fault with the Canadian representatives because they did not bring before the conference the matter of the embargo. 1 am afraid that my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) has been too busy lately in the counties of Maisonneuve, Two Mountains, Argenteuil and Terrebonne, to study the report carefully, or else he would have found that the question of the embargo was brought before the conference by the Canadian repre-Mr. BOURASSA.
sentatives. At page 41 of the report he will find :
The representatives of Canada desired to bring before the conference the question of the law under which live cattle imported into this country from Canada are required to be slaughtered at the port of landing.
It was considered, however, that the matter was not of sufficient general interest to be dealt with by the conference, and arrangements were made for its discussion privately with the President of the Board of Agriculture.
Therefore, if fault there was, it did not lie with our representatives but with the other members of the conference, who put that matter aside. Of course, I suppose informal negotiations were held between the president of the Board of Agriculture and the Canadian representatives, but the result is, as hon. gentlemen know, fhat the British minister declared positively and bluntly that he would not change the law, and put Canadian cattle on a fair basis, but that he would still go on stamping Canadian cattle as diseased, when it Is a well known fact that Canadian cattle are perfectly free from disease, while British cattle are diseased. But there Is something which was not known then and which is known now, and which throws a clear light upon the conduct of the British government, and especially of Mr. Hanbury. That is, that cattle from the Argentine Republic are now admitted to the British market on better terms than are Canadian cattle. Without wishing to hurt the feelings of any members of this House who have found fault with my attitude towards the mother country during the past three years, I may be allowed to ask them : What is the result of our great loyalty ? Where is the return for our great sacrifices, when we see that a foreign government which has contributed nothing else to an imperial war but agricultural products for which they got well paid, is now receiving better treatment from tbe British government than is loyal Canada ?
But Sir, this is not the only instance which should prove to us that if we want to have our own interests protected we should ourselves look to our own interests and not expect any great favour from the British government. What did we see last fall ? After the treaty of peace was concluded In South Africa, after the British government had pledged themselves to restock the farms In South Africa, 18,000 ploughs were bought from a single manufacturing house in the United States. I ask my good friends, the representatives from Ontario, either on one side of the House or on the other, what they think of that action of the British government, in passing over all the good Canadian manufacturers, to go and ask our American neighbours to help them in re-stocking the farms in South Africa which our soldiers helped to conquer for. Great Britain ? We have also seen,

in tlie month of September last, a cattle dealer from the Argentine Republic coming to Montreal and boasting that he with some of his associates had made a contract with the British government for $1,000,000 worth of cattle to be sent to South Africa for the purpose of re-stocking the farms. We have seen also that with a single milling house of the United States the British government made a contract for 75,000 bags of flour ; but we do mot hear that any contract has been made with any Canadian house. We have also seen in the papers that since last session our flour dealers made an application to the British government, through the proper authorities, for exemption from the registration duty on the flour shipped from Canada to European ports, and simply passing through England ; just as we allow goods from England to pass in bond through Canada to the United States without charging any duty upon them. But our dealers have still to pay the duty of 18 cents to the British government on flour which is not to be consumed by the British people, but is shipped to the markets of continental Europe. Lord Strathcona applied to the British government, and was told that nothing could be done.
But I think that good will which was to be secured for us by our loyalty was shown in an ironical way when it was announced by some of the Toronto papers last year that the mule camp which had been established in Montana during the South African war, was to be transferred to Canada. In fact, it was transferred, but a few days later peace was concluded ; so that the American dealers had the good fortune of making profitable contracts with the British government without contributing a cent or a man to the war, while Canadians are still waiting for their profits.
I need not refer to the reception which was given to our Canadian officers and soldiers in London at the time of the coronation. We have heard a great deal of that in the press. We have been told, though I hope that before the session is over we shall be informed that the statement is not true, that our representatives on the Canadian contingent were quartered near the Alexandra palace, and that the good Londoners were charged [DOT] a shilling apiece to see them. I hope at least that we have the proceeds of that show, because I think that they should be used to put up a monument in Canada in remembrance of the great reception accorded to our soldiers in London. We were told also that had the coronation taken place at the time fixed for it, it being delayed unfortunately by the sickness of the King, our soldiers, who had gone there in the expectation that they would parade nobly along with the other representatives of the colonies in London, were going to be used as a police force at the corners of the London streets in order to prevent the rowdies of Whitechapel from
obstructing the members of the British aristocracy in passing through the streets.
I was told that this was so true that our representatives had to protest strenuously, and that it took them a long time to bring the British officials to understand that our men had not been sent there to act as policemen.
The question of treaties has been dealt with at length, and I am not going to speak at any length upon it. I have already spoken, during the last two or three sessions, on the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty and on the Alaskan boundary treaty. On the Alaskan question especially, I am not free to say all I would like to say. I merely wish to add this, that taking the situation that was made for us by the repeal of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty without any compensation being granted to Canada in the way of a fair settlement of the Alaskan boundary, the Canadian government could not do otherwise than accept the constitution of the tribunal as it is now. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has made a slight mistake in his reply to the Prime Minister. He has stated that the Prime Minister, in accepting the constitution of the tribunal as it is, simply removed from the present treaty the impediments which existed in the Venezuela treaty. But there is something more than that which the hon. member has forgotten or perhaps does not know-that there were not only those impediments in the Venezuela treaty, but that still more impediments were added by the American commissioners on the Joint High Commission- that in the last protocol which has been read in this House by the Prime Minister himself, it was stated that the American commissioners would not consent to any tribunal of arbitration, either of six jurists or of any other number, without the condition that any territory occupied by the United States, not only for ten years or thirty years, but at any time,-such as Dyea and Skaguay.-should remain the territory of the United States, wherever the line of demarcation might be fixed by the tribunal of arbitration. Now, I am not prepared to say that the proposed tribunal will give us satisfaction or that the treaty is the best that could have been secured two or three years ago ; but what I am prepared to say is this, that taking the position in which the British government placed themselves when they denounced the Clayton-Bulwer treaty, the Canadian government achieved a great success when they secured the removal of the condition which had been fixed by the Americans four years ago.
We must not forget one thing, that the position of England towards the United States is not to-day what it was four years ago. When I am making references to the bad will of the British government towards Canada, especially in connection with our relations to the Ameri-

cans, I am simply stating the facts as they are. If I were called upon to pass judgment on the policy of the British government, many things could be said in favour of that policy. The government of England and the people of England do not occupy a position in which they can do as they like. The last war in South Africa has not made for Great Britain throughout the world such a glorious and safe position that she is able, for the sake of a strip of territory claimed by Canada, to exact from the government of the United States conditions which she might have exacted some years ago.
And the Canadian people, who did so much to fortify the position of the British government, at the time of the South African war, and the Canadian parliament who supported the British government in its South African policy, must abide by the consequences of that policy. And, if today, Great Britain is not in a position, either from a diplomatic or military point of view, to take a self-assertive policy towards the government of the United States, the people and parliament of Canada cannot have much to say. I have no desire to develop among Canadians any feeling of hostility to Great Britain, but we may as well realize once for all that, so far as our relations with the United States are concerned, it is perfectly useless for us to expect any strong support from the British government. Great Britain is not in a position to give us that support. All our public men who went to London last year, whether ministers of the Crown or ordinary members of parliament, whether in favour of an imperial policy or against it. would, if they were free to speak their minds, admit that their intercourse with British public nren has convinced them that the one great object of British policy for many years to come is to secure at any cost the friendship of the United States. ' When in England myself, I was told by Liberals and Conservatives and even by men close to the government, that it was useless for Canadians to indulge in the expectation that Great Britain would do anything in the way of treaties or trade which would offer the slightest impediment or friction to her relations" with the United States. Therefore we may as well at once make up our minds to look to ourselves alone, save what we can and sacrifice what we cannot help.
There is one point upon which I regret somewhat that a resolution was not adopted by tiie imperial conference. I refer to the subject of martial law and the suspension of the constitution of Cape Colony, which involved the right of the imperial authorities to suspend the constitution of any free British colony. Unfortunately the subject of martial law has not been discussed in this country. It has been a subject of discussion in England, and came before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, Mr. HOUR ASS A.
which gave a decision that reversed the hitherto recognized principle of colonial selft-government The agitation for the suspension o>f the constitution of Cape Colony fortunately was stopped. Although no resolution was adopted by the conference, I was glad to read in the London newspapers that our representatives were consulted as well as the Australian delegates, and that they gave Mr. Chamberlain their straight opinion that the policy of suspension would be most improper. We are interested in that question because it involves the right of the British parliament to suspend or alter in any way the constitution of any British colony. I agree entirely in the opinion of Mr. Haldane, one of England's authorities in these matters, that once a free British colony has been given representative institutions these institutions cannot be altered or suspended by any authority other than its own parliament.
On the whole, Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly satisfied with the result of the imperial conference and the position taken by our representatives. That position may b1 criticised in certain quarters, but the vast majority of our people will say that our delegates did their duty as Canadian statesmen and British citizens. We may differ on many points of the imperial question : we may have differed bitterly on the policy of the government during the South African war, but those days have passed. As my hon. friend from Haldimand (Mr. Thompson) has said, peace is made in South Africa, and I am glad that peace was concluded on terms that were acceptable. For my part, I am anxious that peace should also prevail in Canada. Whatever may be our theories as regards imperialism, we should all meet on one common ground and that is that our only policy should be to protect our interests against those of any other part of the empire, even Great Britain.
The reaction of Canadian sentiment against imperialism has made itself felt, not only upon this side of the House, but also the other side, and is particularly noticeable on the part of the two leaders of) the Conservative party. This afternoon the leader of the opposition referred to the question of Japanese immigration, although he did so in much milder terms than when he spoke in British Columbia. On the 8th of September there was a meeting in Victoria, at which he made a very eloquent and able speech. Referring to the disallowance of the Immigration Act of British Columbia by this government, he said :
I venture to think that so far as this province is concerned, and dealing with the question of disallowance of your statutes, there is no imperial consideration which should prevail against your views or your wishes, as there was no imperial consideration to prevail against similar legislation in Australia, Tasmania, New Zealand and Natal. Why was not

the Natal Act disallowed ? And if there he no answer to this question, why should the federal authorities disallow your Act.
I am liappy to see that the hon. gentleman is becoming an anti-imperialist. And as far as the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is concerned, I was glad also to see that at two meetings held in the province of Quebec-at St. Eustache and St. Jacques tie l'Achigan-he opposed the scheme of imperial defence and protested against any other than trade questions being discussed by the conference.
I hope that this sentiment of Canadianism will prevail on both sides, and that in matters of political and military organization and fiscal policy, the one object we shall have in view will be to safeguard the interests of Canada above every other.
Motion of Mr. Thompson (Haldimand) agreed to.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: That the said address be engrossed and be presented to His Excellency the Governor General by such members of this House as are of the honourable the Privy Council.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: Thrt this House will, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a Supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Perhaps we might let the matter stand until Monday, when, if it be desired, across the floor, arrangements may be made to meet the convenience of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). For the present, I would not like to depart from the information that the right hon. the leader of the House gave me.']
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved :: That this House will, on Tuesday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the Supply to be granted to His Majesty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The Public Accounts of Canada for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1902.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.
The report of the Auditor General for the year ending 30th June, 1902.-Hon. Mr. Fielding.
Report of the Postmaster General for the year ending 30th June, 1902.-Hon. Sir Wm. Mulock.
Report of the Department of Interior for the year 1901-2.-Hon. Mr. Sifton:
Report of the Department of Indian Affairs for the year ending 30th June, 1902. -Hon. Mr. Sifton.
Reports of the Department of Inland Revenue for the year ending 30tli June, 1902. -Hon. M. Bernier.
Report of the Department of Justice as to penitentiaries for the year ending 30th June, 1902.-Hon. Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Trade and Navigation tables for the year ending 30th June, 1902.-Hon. Mr. Paterson.
Report of the fisheries branch of the Department of Marine and Fisheries for the year 1902.-Hon. Mr. Prefontaine.
The report of the Minister of Agriculture for the year ending 31st October, 1902. -Hon. Mr. Fielding.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before the motion passes, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance when we may expect the explanation of ministerial changes which we were told by the right hon. leader of the House would be given after the adoption of the address.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I was about to say that by direction of the Prime Minister I am to inform the House that on Tuesday next that right hon. gentleman will make the customary statement of ministerial changes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The reason I ask is that the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) is obliged to be absent on Tuesday, and if it would be as convenient to make the explanation on Wednesday, it might better meet his wishes.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps we might let the matter stand until Monday, when, if it be desired, across the floor, arrangements may be made to meet the convenience of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax). For the present, I would not like to depart from the information that the right hon. the leader of the House gave me.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 16, 1903.