Mr. A. E. KEMP (East Toronto).

I presume that, so far as the discussion in relation to the documents pertaining to the abrogation of the Clayton-Bulwer treaty is concerned, that incident is now closed. But, if the right hon. the Prime Minister had known yesterday that these documents, or a portion of them, were made public in the Imperial House of Commons nearly two years ago, I think that his attitude would have been entirely different.

As regards the motion now before the House for the correspondence between this government and the government of Great Britain regarding the question of German discrimination, this discrimination has, been going on some four or five years, and I do not see that the government is any nearer a settlement of the matter than when it first took it up. It seems to me that sufficient time has elapsed to entitle us to have the documents produced and laid on the Table. The right hon. the Prime Minister has been made aware on many occasions through public bodies in this country, of the situation. In Toronto, in December of 1900, a deputation waited upon him to urge that something should be done. He then described the situation as a German boycott of Canadian products. On July 25, 1901, the Toronto Board of Trade again presented a petition to the government on this question. The Montreal Board of Trade also approached the government as well as the Montreal Corn Exchange, and urged it to do something. In its petition to His Excellency in Council, the Montreal Corn Exchange said :

Wherefore your petitioners humbly pray that Your Excellency in Council will he pleased to take into consideration the matter of said tariff discrimination by Germany against Canada, with a view of adopting the course usually pursued by other nations under like circumstances, i,e., the imposing of such increased duties on German goods imported into Canada as may demonstrate to the German government the inexpediency of continuing to wita-

hold from this country the most-favoured nation treatment it formerly enjoyed.

It lias been said by the right hon. the Prime Minister that we have no treaty making power. That being the ease, what is our position ? Great Britain, being a free trade country, is unable to make reciprocity treaties with other nations, and can be of no help do us in this matter, so that it becomes a serious question what are we going to do, if other nations besides Germany pursue the same course. The position of our producers is this : When our

products were allowed to go into Germany on the same conditions as those of the United States, one of our largest grain exporters in this country exported into Germany, by way of Montreal, in the year 1897-8, 1,767,397 bushels of grain, and by way of Portland, 1,549,842. Since then this same Arm has only exported 73,727 bushels from Montreal and 70,000 bushels by way of Portland to Germany. True, after this discrimination took place, a very large amount of Canadian products found their way to Germany through the United States and were classified by the Germans as American products. But the Germans, having discovered this practice, now insist on certificates of the origin of the production so as to show that these are Canadian.

They discriminate against us now to the extent of 50 per cent more duty on wheat, oats and rye, and 40 per cent more duty on peas, than they levy upon the products of the United States. It may be said that our trade was very small with Germany and lias not decreased very much. Well, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that in the commodities which we can produce, the United States has increased their exports since 1897 to Germany about 100 per cent. Our position is peculiar in this respect, while we take from Germany about three of four times as much in value as we send there, on the other hand the United States sent to Germany nearly double what they buy. And although we allow German products to come In here at a tariff half that of the United States, yet Germany sees fit to subject us to this humiliating and unfair discrimination. I claim that there should be no pretense of state secret in regard to this correspondence. Four or five years were ample time for the government to do something, and so far it has done nothing. Nor is it at all likely to in the future. The attitude of the German government has been so far that of a bully. Such is practically the description given of it by the London correspondent of the New York ' Tribune.' When these resolutions were passed by the Montreal Board of Trade and the Toronto Board of Trade, that correspondent thus discussed the attitude of the Germans; they threaten that, if the government yields to the demands of the Montreal bodies, they will bring their influence to bear so Mr. KEMP.

as to have the general German tariff on Canadian goods increased by 50 per cent.

Now, what position do we occupy ? Suppose that the United States were treated in this way by Germany, how long would Germany be allowed to discriminate against the products of the United States ? I venture to say that they would not discriminate for more than twenty-four hours. Look at the position of Russia at the time when the United States put a duty on Russian petroleum. I do not think there was any danger of petroleum being sent from Russia to the United States-that would be like carrying coals to Newcastle. But, the moment the United States did that, the Russian government at once retaliated in such a way that the Americans saw fit to remove the duty that they had put on. Therefore, I contend that there is only one way for this country to deal with Germany. Our government should take into consideration how they can so arrange the tariff of this country as to protect ourselves in cases of this kind, if we are unable, through the mother country, to get justice. Germany, of all the nations of the world, is the last from which we should accept unjust treatment. What has been the position of Germany with regard to the British Empire for the last two or three years ? What has been her position with regard to British troops in South Africa ? Her position has been one of misrepresentation and abuse. I consider that the attitude of Germany towards Great Britain, and towards the British Empire, of which we form part, has been a most unjust and most unreasonable one. They have looked forward to the downfall of the British Empire, and have considered what portions of the empire might fall to them should that downfall take place. They are the greediest nation on the face of the earth, and their attitude with respect to this discrimination against Canada is their attitude in all trade matters. It is a day of extreme commercialism and extreme materialism in Germany. Their attitude to Great Britain concerning the war in South Africa has been dictated by no higher consideration than their commercial advancement. I hope the government will see fit to lay these documents on the Table of the House.

House divided on motion (Mr. Monk) :

Messieurs

Alcorn, Kidd,

Avery, Lancaster,

Bell, LaRiviere,

Bennett, Lavell,

Birkett, Lefurgey,

Blain, Lennox,

Borden (Halifax), Maclean,

Boyd, McGowan,

Brock, McIntosh,

Broder, Monk,

Carscallen, Morin,

Clancy, Northrop,

Clare, Osier,

Clarke, Pope, ,i

Culbert, Pringle,

Earle, Richardson,

Fowler, Robinson (Elgin),

Ganong, Roche (Marquette),

Gourley, Sherritt,

Hackett, Simmons,

Haggart, Smith (Wentworth),

Halliday, Sproule,

Henderson, Taylor,

Ingram, Tolton,

Johnston (Cardwell), Tupper (Sir Charles

Hibbert),

Kaulbach, Ward,

Kemp, Wilmot,

Kendrey, Wilson.-56.

NAYS.

Messieurs

Angers, Laurier (L'Assomption)

Archambault, Lavergne,

Bazinet, j Ij LeBlanc,

Beith, Legris,

Beland, Lewis,

Bernier, Logan,

Blair, Lovell,

Borden (King's, N.S.) Macdonald,

Bourassa, Mackie,

Brown, MacKinnon,

Brunet, MacLaren (Huntingdon)

Bureau, McCoU,

Calvert, McCool,

Campbell, McCreary,

Carbonneau, McEwen,

Carroll, McGugan,

Cartwright (Sir Rich'd) Mclsaac,

Champagne, McLennan,

Christie, Maiouin,

Copp, Marcil (Bagot),

Cnstigan, Marci! (Bonaventure),

Cowan, Martineau,

Davis, Matheson,

Demers (LOvls), Maxwell,

Demers (St. John), Mignault,

Douglas, Monet,

Dugas, Morrison,

Edwards, Mulock,

Emmerson, Murray,

Erb, Oliver,

Ethier, Paterson,

Farquharson, Proulx,

Fielding, Puttee,

Fisher, Reid (Restigouche),

Fitzpatrick, Riley,

Flint, Ross (Ontario),

Fortier, Rcss (Victoria, N.S.),

Fraser, Rousseau,

Gallery, Russell,

Galliher, Schell,

Gauvreau, Smith (Vancouver),

Geoffrion, Stephens,

German, Sutherland (Essex),

Gibson, Sutherland (Oxford),

Gould, Talbot,

Guthrie, Tarte,

Harwood, Thompson,

Heyd, Tobin,

Holmes, Tolmie,

Horsey, Tucker,

Hughes (King's, P.E.I.) Turcot,

Johnston (Lambton), Turgeon,

Kendall, Wright.-107.

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),

PAIRS.

Ministerial. Opposition.

Belcourt, Cargill,

Bruneau, Vrooman,

26*

Harty, Bruce,

Johnston (Cape Breton) Robinson (Northumberland),

Lang, Rosamond,

Lemleux, Leonard,

McCarthy, MacLaren (Perth),

Madore, Barker,

Meigs, McLeod,

Parmelee, Seagram,

Power, Porter,

Prefontaine, Reid (Grenville),

Roche (Halifax), Hale,

Rose (Rimouski), Calvin,

Scott, Cochrane,

Sifton, Casgrain,

Wade, Hughes (Victoria),

Hyman, Gilmour,

Dyment, McCormick,

Charlton, Tisdale,

Blckerdike. Roddick.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman, I venture to express the hope that the resolutions which are now before you will receive the very favourable consideration of the com-

mittee. They are exactly similar to the resolutions that were introduced last year to provide pensions tor the militia. By the North-west Mounted Police Act, which has been in force now for many years, constables are allowed a pension, but the officers have been denied that privilege. Last year a Bill was introduced to give pensions to officers of the militia, which Bill, I may say, was received with great favour by the House, and elicited nothing but favourable criticism and the sanction of both sides of the House. Now, without making any invidious comparison, and whilst I do not at all wish to abate from the just praise which is due to the militia, I think that the mounted police are entitled to at least as much consideration. The services of the mounted police do not require to be praised. Those services have been so valuable, especially in recent years, that I am sure the country will feel that we are only giving the North-west mounted police their due when we provide that the officers as well as the men shall receive a pension in their old age. At present the work of the mounted police, far from being restricted, has increased, and is increasing. In the Norm-west Territories we now have patrols all the way from the United States frontier of Montana and Minnesota up as far as Mackenzie river. The most northern post we have is on the Great Slave lake. In the west we have one or two posts, certainly one on the Peace river. In the Yukon it is a fact recognized by everybody that the services of the mounted police have been simply invaluable. They have maintained order, and made the Yukon as safe as any other part of Canada. This is saying a great deal in- favour of the force, especially when we reflect that the Yukon is of such recent growth, and is settled, as such countries must be settled, by a rather unsteady element.

Provision is made first of all that the officers of the mounted police, like the officers of tiie militia who are to receive a pension, shall contribute a certain amount thereto, consisting of an abatement of 5 per cent of their salary. Then it is proposed that if an officer of the mounted police is retired after 20 years of service he shall receive a pension equal to twenty-fiftieths of his annual pay for the time he has been in the service. A similar pension is given to other officers who are retired after a service of 25 years. Those who retire voluntarily after 35 years of service are entitled to a pension equal to thirty-five-fiftieths of their income during that time. The number of officers who will be entitled to participate in this fund is 55 : the commander, the assistant commander, 11 superintendents, 35 inspectors, G surgeons and 1 veterinary surgeon. Then there is a provision that the wives and children of the officers shall be entitled to a pension in the same way as the officers of the militia.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Do the provisions apply to those who have retired ?

Only to those who are in the service. I think those who have retired would not be entitled, because they have not served the full time of 20 years.

Mr. SPROULE.

Has the minister made any calculation of how much money will be required to be added to the 5 per cent to make up this pension ?

No, I have not made any calculation, and I do not see how it is possible to make such calculation. We think the country will not be called upon to contribute to any of these pensions for a long time to come, and I will give the reason for thinking so. There are, as I have said, 55 officers who will be entitled to this pension. Of that number 16 have now served under 5 years ; 7 under 10 years ; 11 under 15 years ; 17 under 20 years ; 2 under 25 years, and 2 under 30 years. So there are only 4 who could participate in the fund at an early date. I think only one or two members of the force are likely to take advantage of this fund for a considerable time to come. But the greater number of the force have not yet been 20 years in the service, so it is not probable that for a long time to come the country will be called upon to pay anything towards these pensions.

Mr. SPROULE.

Am I right in understanding that this 5 per cent only applies to officers and not to men ?

To officers alone. The men, I may say, contribute nothing. Though the force has now been in existence about 27 years, and there have been 4,000 men passing through the force, we only pay at present in pensions to the men less than $2,000 a year. The reason is that a good many of those 4,000 have withdrawn from the force and settled in the North-west, and have thereby renounced their pension.

Mr. T. O. DAVIS (Saskatchewan).

I understand the officers of the mounted police have been paying into the superannuation fund a great many years, I believe 2 per cent.

No.

Mr. DAVIS.

I was so informed by the controller of the police. However, there is one clause in the resolution which I cannot agree with, that which says that an officer retiring on account of injury received in the discharge of his duties, gets a gratuity not exceeding three months pay for every two years of service. Therefore, if an officer has joined the North-west mounted police and, after two years service, has received some injury in the discharge of his duties necessitating his retirement, he would !,e

entitled to the magnificent sum of $240 on retiring. Now, as the officer might receive injuries that would unfit him from maintaining his family, I think the government should arrange in some way that he should receive something more substantial than that amount of money.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

My attention was drawm to the same clause, which the hon. gentleman has just mentioned. It does seem to me that if it is intended to make some provision for an officer in case of injury in the discharge of his duty, the resolution is hardly in the form in which we should expect it. Possibly it is intended to be an addition to the pension.

These resolutions have been copied word for word from the Act which was passed last year in regard to the militia. I will take note of the objection and at a future stage I will be able to give information upon it.

Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).

I understand this pension applies to the officers only and not to the men ?

To the officers only.

Mr. SPROUEE.

Undoubtedly we have adopted a somewhat similar principle in the militia branch, but, I have always held that wherever we employ men and give them good compensation in the shape of wage or salary, they have no more reason to expect superannuation or pension if they have served 20, or 25, or 35 years, than hundreds of thousands of people who are discharging service in the country quite as hard, whose occupation is quite as dangerous, whose remuneration is much smaller, and for whom we make no provision whatever.

Resolution reported.