' Does the hon. gentleman propose to raise the devil with the iron bounties ?
Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.) The hon. gentleman from Peterborough (Mr. Kendry) spoke about the 15,000 people who are engaged in the woollen industry. Well, I belong to a province where there are 32,741 men engaged in the fishing industry, and all we want for those people is that everything they consume shall be made as cheap as possible, because they have to buy everything, and I do not want them to be compelled to buy their ready-made clothing from the shoddy manufacturers of Ontario. I say
shoddy, because there have been some very shoddy speeches made in that interest on the other side of the House. When I tell you that there are six mills in Ontario preparing shoddy for the manufacture of woollen goods, you can form your own idea of the kind of goods they would compel us to wear under their high tariff. We regard it as a great privilege to be enabled to buy goods of good quality. If you buy a coat made of the shoddy stuff that comes down from Ontario, the colour all goes out of it in a very short time. We have woollen mills in Nova Scotia, and in Cape Breton, and every one of them will exist and prosper under the present tariff. If any of those mills go down, it will be because they expect too high a price for their goods or, perhaps, it may be from another reason-over-production ; they may manufacture too much for the consumption of the Dominion. Let them make goods of good quality, and they will always find a market for them, even in this Dominion. People are getting more enlightened in this age. I am glad to find that even a minority of our friends from the province of Ontario are getting more enlightened. We hear hon. gentlemen say to us : ' Look at Ontario,' as if Ontario were the whole of the Dominion. Thank heaven, it is not. And, after all these great bombastic speeches about what Ontario has accomplished, these hon. gentlemen had to go down to little Nova Scotia, and out of the five members of the opposition returned from that province, select their leader. They had not a man among themselves capable of leading them or keeping them together. Our hon. friends opposite tell us what Ontario and the people of Ontario are going to do at the next general election. Well, Mr. Speaker, I hope that there will be a progress of enlightenment even in that province before another election takes place.
We were told that before we had a protective tariff, we had to eat Canadian pork. All I have to say in reply to that statement is that under the protective tariff we collected $113,748 of duty on American pork consumed in the provinces for the use of the fisheries, which does not show that, even with a high tariff, we were compelled to use Canadian pork.
I am not going to weary the House with figures. The resolution of my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, is so broad that it may mean anything. You can put any construction on it you like. In that respect it resembles some passages in the Book of Revelations, on which commentators have been giving different interpretations for the last 500 years, and are still as far from the correct meaning as when they began. If this resolution is satisfactory to hon. gentlemen opposite, then it is very pleasing to us, and it reminds me of a story told about the early settlement of Dakota. A man of rather shabby appearance and riding a poor-looking horse came to a settler's Mr. ROSS (Victoria).
house one evening. The settler asked him whether he was a lawyer or a doctor or a vendor of medicine or what he was. And at last the newcomer said : I am a follower of the Lord. Well, my friend, said the settler, you will be a long time before you will catch up to him with that horse. So it will be a long time before the policy propounded in the resolution of hon. gentlemen opposite will bring them to the Treasury benches.
I was glad to find by the high tone taken by the leader of the opposition and one or two of his followers that they have no aspirations to occupy this side of the House in the near future. They are aiming at something higher, they are to be a band of brethren, who would teach the people everything almost necessary for salvation, and they put me in mind of an incident which happened at a Methodist camp-meeting. At that meeting there was a very attractive young lady, and five nice young men from New York, such as sometimes stray to those meetings, went over to attend this one. One by one they related theiij Christian experience, and in each case that experience was that they had a call from the Lord to marry this beautiful young lady. The old deacon said : I thought I knew something of the mind of the Lord, but this is the first instance in which I have found that there was a call from the Lord to five young men to marry the one girl at the one time. Well, Mr. Speaker, I have been fifteen years continuously in public life, and this is the first instance in which I have found the Conservative party not. working to occupy the Treasury benches, and I am pleased to see that they have a higher aim just now. No doubt their desire will be gratified, and they will continue to occupy the position which they now fill so acceptably to hon. gentlemen on this side.
The hon. gentleman for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) said the other day that race and religion was the stock-in-trade by which this government gained power. I can, from my experience, characterize that charge as a slander, at least so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned. In my own constituency, composed of a few men of French origin, a good many Irishmen and a large number of Scotch Catholics, and of course a larger number of blue banner Presbyterians, I never heard any expression used which conveyed any reflection on the race or creed of the Prime Minister of Canada or the party that supports him from the province of Quebec. But I remember the time, which must be in the recollection of the right hon. the First Minister, when it was not so easy for the Liberals of the province of Quebec to assert their principles as it is to-day. I remember when a pronounced Liberal principle was considered a crime in some instances in that province. I had the pleasure of supporting a
government which had for Minister of Justice a gentleman who was afterwards promoted to be Chief Justice of the province of Quebec. I refer to my departed friend, Sir A. A. Dorion. A more pure, a more perfect and a more capable man I never met. I am a Scotchman but I never knew a Scotchman in public or private life outside my own family, that 1 held so dear as that pure-minded man. He was as nearly perfect as humanity could be. Of him it could be truly said, in the word of the Psalmist, ' Mark the perfect man and behold the upright, for the end of that man is peace.' I consider it a privilege to be even at this late day able to pay this tribute of resi>ect to my dear departed friend.
One word more. We must not forget even in this country that there is a Providence over us-that there is an overruling Providence in the lives of individuals and families and communities and provinces and particularly in the life of the Dominion. And Providence, in His anger, thought wise to punish this Dominion) with an unjust government for eighteen years. But hearing the groanings of the people when they were in bondage, as the Israelites of old in Egypt, he came down and relieved them of that bondage. And I want to say to my friends in the government, that, so long as they continue to do what is right, sot long as they continue to do what is just and honest and upright, there is a discerning public opinion growing in this country that will continue them in power. One thing I wished to say before I finished. The hon. member for Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock) said the other evening he was proud of the Conservative party, and was anxious that their history should be published. I think, for the sake of his own friends, they had better allow the present century to pass away before that is done, because there are certain things in connection with that party from 1872 until the recent defeat that had better not be written. If the hon. gentleman were in his place, I might enumerate these things, but
At this late hour of the night, and at this late stage of the debate, I do not intend to detain the House long. I think I had better commence with some reference to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross, Victoria, N.S.) who has just taken his seat. He is a sort of Rip Van Winkle, who appears to have been asleep ever since the honest Liberalism of 1873. He has not wakened up to the condition of the new Liberalism of this country, or he would not make the statements he has with reference to the Conservative party. His treatment of the sacred word and his effort to weave it in with the conduct and policy of the Liberal party to-day, certainly does not result in a very harmonious production. You could no more apply the sacred word to their conduct-why, there comes in the Rip Van Winkle again. He is thinking of the honest Liberals, of the Dor-ions and Mackenzies. He said that they had free trade in corn and spoke of Joseph going down into Egypt. It was not Joseph, but Joseph's brethren, the rascals who sold him there.
I am sorry that, if the hon. gentleman knows it, he has not profited more by it. They had free corn long before Christianity was introduced, and we had to come back to that when these hon. gentlemen came into power. And we have it now. My hon. friend-I was going to call him our reverend friend-is not very happy in his allusions to the sacred Scripture and to free com. But there is this point with regard to free corn. If there was one argument more than another that the friends of hon. gentlemen opposite used as an argument in favour of free corn in Canada, it was that it would give the farmer who wished to fatten his cattle for the English market an opportunity to do so-so that we would not be obliged to send our cattle to the United States market as Stockers or unfed cattle. And what are the conditions to-day ? I will quote from a paper that there will be no dispute about, because hon. gentlemen opposite will believe the paper, and my friends on this side will believe me- so there will be no dispute. I will quote the Globe, showing the figures it gave on the 30th October last, just on the eve of the people going to the polls. The Globe says :
During four and a half years ending 31st December, 1896
That is previous to the Conservatives going out of power.
-Canada shipped to the United States 3,762 cattle, receiving therefor $52,606. Since December 31st, 1896
That is, while hon. gentlemen opposite were in power
-the shipments have reached 301,073, valued at $4,377,852. The Laurier government secured the
removal of the United States quarantine restrictions.
Now, X want to say that that was a very mistaken policy in the interests of the country. What was the value of those cattle ? You would think, to hear hon. gentlemen opposite talking on the platform, that the effect of it had been to enhance the value of our cattle by $10 a head. X have heard that statement made myself. But what are the figures given by the Globe? These figures show that the value of the cattle sent to the United States during the Conservative regime was $13.98 on the average, while during the four and one-half years of Liberal regime, the value was $14.54-just 56 cents per head additional. And, if you take into account the four years previous to 1896, there is no comparison at all in their favour, but rather the reverse. But consider the effect of this upon the interests of the country and the prospective interests of the cattle shippers of Canada. It has put beyond possibility of chance the removal of the embargo upon Canadian cattle in the English market. But, have hon. gentlemen opposite attempted to do anything in that respect ? They boast wonderfully because they have got the cattle quarantine regulation changed as between this country and the United States. But this affects us injuriously in the English market, and in every other market where it is proposed to ship cattle. Now, it always happens when I address the House that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) is not in his place. I wish ito make reference to him, and I may call him the ager-minded Minister of Agriculture, who thinks of nobody but the tillers of the soil. To hear what is said of him one would suppose that his tender hands are blistered holding out blessings to the farmers of this country. But what market has the Minister of Agriculture opened up for the farmer that the farmer did not have when this government came into power. From the premier down to the smallest man that sings his praises, not one of them can point to a single market that has been opened by them for the products of the farmers of Canada. But one thing that they did do was to close the German market against the Canadian grain. They gave the West Indies some privileges that had not been given when they came into power ; and, since then the West Indies have raised their tariffs against Canada. The Minister of Agriculture is heralded throughout this country as a practical farmer. I venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that he never ploughed a furrqgv or hoed a row of corn in his life.
Yes, but it was on his toe. I wish to make reference to some things said by the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross) who has just taken his seat. He stated that the woollen industry was prosperous
during the Mackenzie regime under a tariff of 174 per cent. If the hon, gentleman will recall the history of that time, I think he will find that it was by no means prosperous in many parts of this country. He has spoken of the poor Canadian with the faded coat made of goods of Canadian manufacture. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, the class of goods made in some of the factories in this country are a credit to any man to wear ; and I do not wish to deprecate home manufacture in favour of the labour of any other country. The hon. gentleman was good enough to refer to the fact that the representatives of the great Conservative party of Ontario had to select as their leader a man from Nova Scotia. So far as that is concerned, Ontario is not provincial. The Conservative party is a national party, not a provincial party, and it would be well for this country, if hon. gentlemen opposite could say that they were not a provincial party. More than that, we lay our hands upon an able man wherever we can find him. And still more, when we select an hon. gentleman to be our leader, we select a man who is ready to stand by his guns and keep confederation intact against the machinations and efforts of a man like the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding), who, when he was premier of Nova Scotia, tried to take his province out of the Dominion ; and when he came down to the conference in Quebec to sit- in solemn council with Mr. Mercier and Sir Oliver Mowat and the premiers of this Dominion-only one Conservative premier among them-the only condition upon which he would confer with them was that they should put upon the minutes the statement that nothing that conference might do, should hinder Nova Scotia from seceding from the Dominion. That is the kind of men hon, gentlemen opposite follow. I do not intend to follow such a man, no matter where he comes from. We will take a man that is national wherever we find him. We are a national party, we are not provincial. It would be well for our hon. friends opposite to wake up and get a little bigger than the province of Nova Scotia, get a little bigger than the province of Quebec. It is high time. The people who govern this country were larger in their outlook than the mere province in which they live. It is a mistake for Canada, and unless her public men can take a broad national view they will not succeed in governing this country.
The hon. gentleman must take his medicine. Now this preference they talk so much about, this preference without any quid pro quo, what has i)t done? Now, I am going to use a homely simile which every man can understand. Our old
friend, the Rev-I beg his pardon. I mean the hon. gentleman who just took his seat, referred to our policy as something like what you saw in Revelation, you could not tell what it meant, you could make it mean one thing or another. Well, it will he a happy day for those hon. gentlemen if they ever get as near Revelation as that. Their conduct and their policy is like Revelation because nobody can understand it, you cannot even put two meanings on it, you cannot even put one. It is all out of joint like the hon. gentleman's speech, and I would advise him either to read the Scripture over again, or to leave it alone, in the House. Now, what have these hon. gentlemen done? They are living in the good old Tory House, and they have simply put a bay window to the House. Just like the bad boy running away from justice, he runs into the bay window, and thinks he is out of danger. They have merely put up a bay window to this' building, but it will never stand the storm, because the roof is not good, it will leak, and they will be driven out. The opinion is looming up all over this country that this English preference is a mistake. They say they have a revenue tariff. Supposing it is a revenue tariff so far as England is concerned. Is it a revenue tariff to any other country in the world ? No. Sir, and they cannot claim it is. The most they can claim for it is that it might be a revenue tariff so far as English goods are concerned. But when they apply it to any other country it is a highly protective tariff, and the principle of protection is as much embodied in it as it ever was in this country before, and in some instances more.
When you come to consider the farmers, do mowing machine, reapers, binding machines and all the heavy articles farmers are obliged to purchase-does one single article come into this country under the English preference ? The farmers' interests have been totally overlooked. So they need not claim so much for their English preference. But what does the mutual preference mean ? Hon. gentlemen say : Oh, you need not ask for it. Is thdt a position for a public man to take ? Is that what the followers of hon. gentlemen opposite do when they want anything ? No, they are knocking at the door every day of the week, Sunday included, for something they want. They believe in that principle when they are after the public chest, they ought to believe in that principle when they are after the markets of the world. But no, you must not ask for it, you can never get it. Now there is just this question to be looked at: We have got to come to some
different conditions in this country from what hon. gentlemen opposite propose. I say seriously that the economic conditions of this country are in danger under the present regime. We are standing to-day in this position: Chinese labour, one-third of the
world's population, knocking at our western
gate for admission. What does that mean? Five cents a day. ten cents a day, fifteen cents a day for labour. If hon. gentlemen admit that free trade is the policy of Canada, then they have got to open these western gates and let this horde of cheap labour into this country in order to enable us to compete with other manufacturing countries. You have got to decide either for high protection in this country or taking care of Canadians, or opening your gates and letting this cheap labour come in, in order that Canada may compete with foreign manufacturers. That is a question worth considering, and ought to be considered. What do we see to-day in that wonderful country ? Every commercial country in the world in arms out there watching the great interests that are at stake. If the country is divided up, no doubt England will be a great factor in the ultimate decision, and who then can compete with England in that country, with her money and with her cheap labour ? Canada is not in a position to do so. We wish to have the closest possible relations with the mother country, but we want to protect our interests in the future; and hon. gentlemen opposite are derelict in their duty if they do not take up that subject and deal with it before complications arise that they will be unable to cope with.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few things that ought to be said, and this cold storage business is one matter that I wish to refer to. After all the boasting that we have had with reference to what these hon. gentlemen have accomplished I say, without fear of successful contradiction, that cold storage, so far as fruits are concerned, is but in its experimental stage. They don't know to-day what policy is best to adopt, they do not know under what conditions it is safest to ship fruit; and I fancy that one of the causes of failure is that they have sent out to England their camp followers who know as much about the conditions that should govern the shipment of fruit as about those that govern the shipment of swine, and no more. They boast about their cold storage for shipments of butter and cheese to England; how is it then that these articles stand several shillings, in the English market, under the products of Denmark and of Australia ? They say that butter reaches there under the conditions it ought to be in, yet it has to take a back seat in the English market so far as prices are concerned. The quality is right, and if it was shipped there under proper conditions the price would be higher than it is. But in order to get good prices something more must be done. What are they boasting about ? There is another matter they have got to learn, and that is that you cannot take butter, or cheese, or any other perishable article out of a low temperature and put it into a higher temperature, with safety to that article. That has been one
of the great difficulties in shipments of our fowls over there. After all the boasting of hon. gentlemen, there is no place over there for a man to put his articles into cold storage by government provision ? There is for his butter and cheese, but there is not for his fowls, and he has got to go to the Englishman who makes a business of cold storage, and he puts his fowl in there-at what price ? From two and a half cents to three cents per pound for thirty days. That means that the Canadian shipper of fowl makes that much less profit on it. These gentlemen are not looking after the interests of the farmers as they ought. Shippers may stuff their chicken as much as they like here, but if they do not put it in proper condition on the English market the chicken won't bring a proper return. If you look up the records you will find all the shipments that have been made. Now, they cannot surely ask businessmen to ship goods under the condition of things that they have brought about themselves. I was looking up the articles of shipment going over to the old country, and it is a losing game, according to their own reports. Then why do they expect private individuals to invest their capital in such enterprises ? It is about time we had somebody running this concern that knew what he was doing. It is time for them to quit singing this song: See
what we have done for the farmers, look at the cold storage we have given them. What was the argument of hon. gentlemen opposite in reference to cold storage in 1896 when it was almost in its inception ? Why, when the Conservative government had an item of $60,000 in the estimates of 1896, and when Mr. Foster, who was then acting Minister of Agriculture, asked hon. gentlemen opposite to allow the item to pass in order that he might keep up the continuity of the system, they refused point black to allow it to pass. Still, they go around this country boasting of what they are doing for the farmer. They are not willing to do for the farmer what they profess, they are now after something else. He is the last man in the account. They try to make him believe that their bowels of compassion are as warm as ever for him. Sir, they are as dry as a ram's horn.
Now if hon. gentlemen opposite were honest, were sincere in attempting to get a revenue tariff for this country, no government had a better opportunity. They had a buoyant revenue, a surplus of millions. They claimed to have made a reduction in the tariff, although they have a surplus of eight millions. No attempt to carry out what they professed to think this country wanted. They claimed that the country wanted a revenue tariff. Why, Sir, we never had such a revenue in this country. That is the sense in which it is a revenue tariff. A revenue tariff properly speaking should only meet the requiremnts and just Mr. BRODER.
demands of the country, but hon. gentlemen opposite have a revenue tariff that meets more than the just demands of the country and $8,000,000 to boot, according to their story.
I say that the mutual preference which is proposed in the amendment before the House, means a great deal more than many people may see upon the face of It. It does not mean that because England may put 5 cents a bushel on wheat or may put a very nominal duty on cattle and the products of other agricultural countries entering the British market, that therefore we will get a trifle more for our agricultural products; but it means-the first place for us Canadians in the English mai'ket, and it means an unlimited market for the products of Canada. It means a great deal more than hon. gentlemen opposite assume; it means an unlimited market for the products of this country for years and years to come. It puts the Canadian farmer in the position of the man who drives down to the Ottawa market with a load of produce and has an hour to sell his goods before any one else is allowed to get there. It means that his load is sold whether other people's loads are sold or not. If there is one thing more than another that England is interested in, and if there is one thing more than another that the government ought to represent to the authorities in England, it is that we in Canada have the land and we ought to have the energy and the population to produce all the bread and meat that England wants. We have got the broad acres to do it, thanks to the Conservatives who opened up our country, and the moment it would dawn on England that we would be able in a few short years to give her all the food products she wants, then there would be no difficulty in bringing about this mutual preferential trade which is advocated on this side of the House. Hon. gentlemen opposite say it is impossible to do it. Sir, It is worth the trial, and any public man who is not willing to make the effort, is not honest to the interests of Canada.
Now, Sir, I want to speak of a matter which has often been referred to by gentlemen on the Liberal benches. They will get up there and talk about the race cry, and the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Ross), was good enough to say that there was no race cry in Nova Scotia. Well, that is to the credit of the Conservative party in that province. The Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) waxed loud and eloquent- loud, whether eloquent or not-about some little paper away up north saying something about Laurier-Tarte & Co., and so on. If there is one thing more than another that these hon. gentlemen, from the premier down, persist in, it is in refusing to be held by the opinions expressed in newspapers. They repudiated their organs from the
Globe down to tbe smallest sheet-I do not want the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) to leave the House until I tell: him something. There was another cry in North Bruce, and what was it? It was the harbour cry and the dock cry. The 1 Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) was up there wading through the snow up to his waist-and that is not far-and skating on the ice to inspect the harbours to see what the people wanted, just two days before the election. I am very glad he went up there, because I think he helped to elect a good Tory.
Well, with all the trouble you had in your special car and all that, they were a pretty expensive lot. I am not finding fault with that, because I think the minister (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ought to be used well-when he goes away.
It is very significant that two ministers of the Crown should be in the neighbourhood of North Bruce. The hon. member (Hon. Mr. Ross) told us that Providence has been kind to the Liberals, but Providence did not favour these two ministers because the storm stayed them and snowed them in. Providence is beginning to leave you fellows over there. There is a good deal said by gentlemen opposite about the race cry, but I state here fearlessly that they are in power today because of the race cry. The race cry is not the product of a few months nor of a few years even, but you can go back to 1885 and 1886 and you find the right hon. the Prime Minister on the Champ de Mars in Montreal backed up by the Hon. Mr. Mercier trying to unite his people in one phalanx irrespective of party. There is 'the crop across the House to-day : fifty-eight members from the province of Quebec in a solid phalanx supporting the government, and seven Conservatives. Talk about the race cry. Can you find a single instance in the history of the country parallel to that. They have now the crop from ithe seed they have sown, and the moment you speak of the fine crop that they have grown on this soil that they have cultivated so long, they answer back : Oh, you are raising the race cry. I say that there is no honest man who should stand up and endeavor to make capital out of a race cry in this country. I have never done it. and I have stood up for the minority when my political interests would have been better served by taking the other side. That is known all over this country. I say that the men from the leader down who have attempted to unite the people because of their race and religion irrespective of
party, have not worked in the interest of Canada. Is not this a significant thing V I have here a quotation from speeches of the First Minister and the Hon. Mr. Mercier on the Champ de Mars as published on the 26th November, 1885, in La Patrie, and that speech of the Prime Minister is not to be found in the volume of speeches which the friend of the right hon. gentleman has published to be read by the people of Canada. Was that speech intended for Quebec ? It was not intended for the rest of the world, because it is not published. That is rather significant. It Is time hon. gentlemen opposite should cease harping on the race question. Why, you can scarcely mention the name of the Prime Minister or of the Hon. Mr. Tarte without being accused of raising the race cry. Have we not the right to deal with the conduct of public men no matter who they are or what they are ? The Conservative party is the party that has stood up for the rights of minorities in every respect. If you want authority for the statement that the Liberals have raised the race cry, you can read your own newspaper. You can turn back to the Montreal Herald of the 28th March, 1885, and you will find that it refers to the present Prime Minister and to the Hon. Edward Blake as endeavouring to make capital out of the condition of things in the North-west, and it speaks of the Globe newspaper as having for two years attempted to bring about disturbances in the North-west. I can quote from the documents of the Liberal party to prove that they are the party who live on racial cries. But, Sir, I say with pride that while the Conservative party stands here with a small phalnax from the province of Quebec, they stand as representing the best element in that province; the best element among the French Canadian people of the province of Quebec. Sir, the best element of the people, English and French, in the province of Quebec, stand behind the Conservative party in this parliament, and to-day we hear the rumblings of discontent of certain men who want to follow the lines laid down in 1885 and 1887. They stand up 'here and they say : Whist, whist, we have got all the advantage in Quebec that we can get out of that condition of things, and now we want to talk to Ontario a while. I do not believe that any honest public man should make use of such a weapon in political warfare. These gentlemen opposite cannot hurl taunts across the floor of the House without expecting a retort, and if they get a retort they have brought it upon themselves. I say, Sir, that the people of Canada irrespective of race or creed are willing to stand side by side in the great national interests of this country, and they should be allowed to do so without interference from the Liberal party.
Our old friend (Hon. Mr. Ross) spoke about the iron bounties. I think he was hardly fair in his argument, because at the present time we are paying more for iron bounties than was ever paid before in this country, and that is a condition of things he is willing to support. He told us it was time enough to bid good morning to the devil when you met him, but the hon. gentleman was between the devil and the deep sea, and he did not wish to answer that question. He has been too long in public life not to know what that question meant. He himself tells us he has been fifteen years in public life and he knows very well that was a fair question put in a fair way, and he should answer it.
I am going to answer it, perhaps better than you can. The hon. gentleman's province is much interested now in the iron bounties, and he did not want to say anything about it. Provincial interests came in again, and he is a provincial man. He is not a Dominion man at all, and if he is true to his province, he should support our leader here. If he is a free trader, I do not know how in the world he can sleep in that House over there.