Mr. MACLEAN.

But we want something for what we have given; and why was the opportunity not taken advantage of yesterday ? I believe the cause of no action on England's part was the attitude of this government. The opportunity has been presented to this government time after time to open up negotiations leading to reciprocity of trade between the mother country and this country, and every time it has been thrown down. Let me read what has

taken place within a very few days. I am now quoting from a prominent English magazine. In the Nineteenth Century for March, there is an article dealing with Mr. Chamberlain as an empire builder. Speaking in Birmingham in January last, Mr. Chamberlain made this statement:

A new factor has entered into the politics of this country. In future you will have to take account of the opinion of your colonists. You will have to consult them.

Mr. Chamberlain made that statement in connection with the war in South Africa; and the essayist who is discussing the question says :

Those are pregnant words, and call to mind others already uttered by Sir Wilfrid Laurier :

* If you want our help, you must call us to your councils.'

Sir Wilfrid Laurier is quoted as having said to the people of Great Britain in connection with the jubliee celebration : ' If you want our help, you must call us to your councils.' In that very year a proposal was made to call Canada and the other colonies to the councils of the empire, and the right hon. gentleman did not accept it. The invitation was again given by Mr. Chamberlain in that speech in January last, and no response was made to it ; and on top of that the following despatch was sent to this country by Mr. Chamberlain-it was given out in this country on the 11th of March :

On the 23rd January, the Colonial Secretary cabled to Lord Minto as follows : ' It is proposed by His Majesty's government to take advantage of the presence of the premiers at the coronation to discuss with them1 the question of oolitieal relations between the mother country "and the colonies, Imperial defence, commercial relations of the empire and other matters of general interest.'

There was a broad invitation issued to the Prime Minister of this country and to the prime ministers of all the other colonies to discuss Imperial affairs ; and I believe that that invitation was given in view of the statement which was made yesterday, that England had at last come to the point when she must resort to protection; and if the proper answer had been given to that invitation, I believe that the budget speech of yesterday would have shown an inclination on the part of England to give us some kind of reciprocity in return for what we have given to England; but what put them off ? It was this reply of the Canadian government which His Excellency the Governor General on the 3rd of February cabled to the Colonial Secretary :

Referring to your despatch of the 27th December, my government accepts the invitation extended to the Prime Minister to attend the Coronation. . ,

The he goes on to say :

Referring to the several questions mentioned in your despatch of the 23rd February, the only one which, in the opinion of my ministers,

gives promise of useful discussion, is that of the commercial relations between the various sections of the empire. The political relations now existing between the mother country and the great self-governing colonies, and particularly Canada, is regarded by my ministers as entirely satisfactory, with the exception of a few minor details and they do not anticipate that in the varying conditions of the colonies there can be any scheme of defence applicable to all.

But, Mr. Speaker, is it not evident that it is just in connection with an Imperial scheme of defence, that a tariff can he arranged to the advantage of Canada ? If a tax were put on all foreign food products coming into the empire for the defence of the empire, that would give Canada reciprocal treatment, and it is because the right hon. the Prime Minister said he was not prepared to discuss the question of defence, that this proposal was made in the budget speech yesterday to tax grain coming from outside countries without extending any preference to Canada. This is only another instance of the carelessness of this government, and its lack of foresight in dealing with these great questions that concern the people's interests. They take credit to themselves for our good crops and prosperity. They are not entitled to credit for either, but they deserve discredit for having lost opportunity after opportunity of doing something to extend and promote the trade of this country, and especially to obtain reciprocity from the motherland in return for the preference we have given it. At the jubilee the Prime Minister threw a great opportunity away. When Mr. Chamberlain made the statement in Birmingham that England must call her colonies to her councils, no reply of an encouraging character was made from this side. And when an official invitation was given the Prime Minister to go over and discuss all the questions concerning the colonies and the mother country, lie replied that he did not intend to discuss the question of defence.

But, Sir, the defence of a nation should be its first consideration, and if we had a patriotic, far sighted and statesmanlike cabinet, that invitation to which I have referred would have been accepted in its broadest sense. Had it been so accepted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would never have come down and proposed to levy a tax on food products without giving a preference to Canada. This is the first time in fifty years that such a tax has been proposed in England. It lias been stated time and again that England never would give us a preference, but if we bad at the helm of state, men of foresight, that question of defence would have been coupled with England's commercial policy, and Canada would have had no difficulty in obtaining the preference we all desire. But the right hon. gentleman apparently saw no connection between the defence of Mr. MACLEAN.

the empire and its commercial policy, and lost the golden opportunity. Yesterday we had the confession made in the British House of Commons by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the principle of protection is a sound one, and that protection does not mean an increase in cost to the consumer. True the statesman who said this is a Tory, but in view of the trend of events I question whether that will take from the value of the declaration in the eyes of the people. And this statesman said further that these duties never should have been abandoned, ns they were a great many years ago. Here is an opportunity which lias been, with criminal carelessness, absolutely thrown away. This is not the first time the interests of our country have suffered through the lack of statesmanship of the right hon. gentleman. As I pointed out in this House on a previous occasion, when there was first a question of the abolition of the Clayton-Bulwer Treaty, Lord Lansdowne declared in an official document that there should be no settlement of that difficulty until an agreement satisfactory to Canada was arrived at concerning the Alaskan Boundary dispute. That was stated in an official dispatch as the declared policy of the British government, but as far as we know the government of Canada never insisted on that position which was taken by tlie British Foreign Secretary and indorsed by the Prime Minister of England, Lord Salisbury, being strictly adhered to. A great opportunity was then lost which cannot be recovered. But I believe that if the invitation of Mr. Chamberlain, received in January last bad been fully accepted, we would have had no proposition in the budget speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to impose a tax on food products without giving a preference to Canada in return for the preference which we have given the manufacturers of England. Thus three great opportunities have been lost of improving our commercial relations with the mother country, and I have no doubt that we will have a similar course followed by our Prime Minister at the coronation conference in June next. Whatever offer may be made to the colonies by tlie mother country, no doubt we will find him using some cold blooded double meaning phrase that will effectually kill it. I make this charge to-day, that in these great questions, which call for foresight and statesmanship, the government have shown itself absolutely incapable. To show the House that the view to which I have given expression is held by leading organs of public opinion in England, let me read a few lines from a recent number of the ' Saturday Review.' In the ' Saturday Review ' of the Oth of March last, I find the following editorial remarks :

Canada, Australia and New Zealand are busyorganizing new contingents for service in South Africa. The persistence of these colonies in identifying themselves with the Imperial cause

is a proof of devotion more remarkable even than their first efforts, and encourages the highest hopes that some scheme of Imperial relations more businesslike than those which now obtain may result from the Colonial Conferences to be held in London this summer. AS New Zealand has been the most enthusiastic contributor to the colonial forces in the field, so her Prime Minister, Mr. Seddon, is easily first in his eagerness to promote the cause of Imperial solidarity. His programme is comprehensive, and includes preferential tariffs, Imperial reserves, the strengthening of the Australasian squadron, and triennial meetings between leading Imperial and colonial statesmen. Mr. Seddon's attitude is what we should expect that of other colonial premiers to be, in view of the attitude of the people they represent. Sir Wilfrid Laurier's unwillingness to consider any project of Imperial defence is intelligible only on the ground that.he has misapprehended the ideas which have been advanced on the subject. We should not have been surprised if his free trade proclivities- which he has not been able to gratify in Canada as premier-were a difficulty in the way of tariff modifications, but that he should deprecate the discussion of defence is astonishing and may prove unfortunate for himself.

It lias already proved unfortunate for tlie Canadian people. Were the right lion, gentleman equal to the situation, he would have accepted that invitation in its entirety and coupled the question of Imperial defence with that of the Imperial trade policy. The ' Saturday Review ' points that he has lost his opportunity. I only hope that he may recover it in June next, but, .judging by the experience we have had in the past, there is very little prospect of his so doing. I am not going to delay the House further on this question. I have taken the earliest opportunity of bringing it up after the Chancellor of the Exchequer's speech of yesterday. Let me emphasize the great fact that there can be no discussion either of Imperial defence or of Imperial trade relations without the two going together. They cannot be uncoupled, ns the Prime Minister has sought to do in liis reply to the invitation sent to the government. When the government in England know that the colonies are prepared to do tlieir share in the way of Imperial defence and are ready to discuss what that share is and how it is to be given, you will find England ready to give a preference to colonial products in her markets recognizing fully the principle of protection, as against the outside world for that great principle the British government has this day accepted, and the recognition of it as an Imperial bond cannot but be an advantage to the farmers of Canada, especially those of our growing Northwest. The future of our North-west lies in two things-the home market, which we propose to keep for them, especially as against American competition; and the English market by way of preference over foreign food products. If there is any reason tliat will bring the American people to a sense of their duty and obligation, if there

is anything that will cause them to respect Great Britain and Canada and compel them to settle such questions as those of our fisheries and the Alaskan boundary, it will be a preference in the British market for Canadian products over the products of the western states of the union. The very form of the invitation sent to the premier, the commercial relations of the empire and the defence of the empire being coupled together, meant preference of some kind. And the Australian and New Zealand premiers saw it, and they are going to London to discuss both these questions of Imperial defence and Imperial trade policy. But our premier goes over, according to his own word, not to discuss the question of defence, but to discuss the question of trade relations. He cannot go with any authority or force to discuss the one without taking the other also. But, with these questions presented together, the parliament of Great Britain will at once see that the time has come when a preference must be given to the colonies. When that time comes, Canada will prosper as she has never prospered before, the empire will be bound together as it never has been before, and we shall be in a position, for the first time in our history, to eompel our neighbours to the south to treat us as they ought to treat us. These are great questions; these are far-reaching questions; these are up-to-date questions-and they are squarely before the people of this country and the jieople of the motherland. They are questions that demand consideration; they are questions calling for the highest kind of statesmanship oh the part of the government. I am sorry to say I have seen no evidence of statesmanship in the handling of them by this government up to the present time. All I have seen is that every opportunity presented to the government to lead in these matters has been neglected. But the empire must be led by the colonies. We are called colonists, and, used in its proper sense, I do. not resent the name. I claim this for the colonies-at least, so far as Canada, Australia and South Africa are concerned- that the clearest vision in regard to Imperial questions has been in the eyes of men who are called colonists. The day will come when all the people of tlie empire will see that the men who are leading in questions of Imperial policy, the men who are doing the work that is binding the empire together, are the men from tlie colonies. We have long had these views on this side of the House; unfortunately, we lost our opportunity to press them" forward. Hon. gentlemen opposite are in power, hut whenever opportunity has come to them, they have allowed it to pass by. As I have said, the only explanation I can give for that is their pro-United States leanings. ' The Senator from Quebec ' and ' the Senator from Ontario,' as they have been called in the United States, would not like to do anything to injure their friends there. But, if the gov-

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

I have to express my regret to my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) that, since he thought it advisable to bring to the attention of the House so important a question as this, he did not follow the usual practice and give some notice to the government of his intention, so that we might be prepared for a discussion. But, if my hon. friend did not give us notice, perhaps it is that, after all, he was not quite sure of his own facts or of his own mind. For, having listened somewhat carefully to what he hasi said, I can hardly think that he meant exactly all he said or that he knows exactly in what position he stands. One thing is quite apparent-he wants to attack the government. And he attacks it right and left, for everything it has done and everything it has not done. The hon. gentleman has attacked us for the British preference and hasi called upon his friends to censure us because, forsooth, we have given a British preference without exacting any compensation. And, before he had gone much further, he blamed us for our pro-Americani leanings. That we gave the British xireference is because of our proAmerican leanings I imagine. That is the kind of logic that we have from the hon. gentleman; therefore, I am not surprised that he has entered somewhat unguardedly upon the discussion of a topic upon which, if he will allow me to advise, he should reflect further before he speaks again. The hon. gentleman blames us because we gave a certain answer to the British invitation sent to us, in common with the other colonies, to take part in the conference that is to take place in London next summer. What reason did he blame us for 1 What fault has he to find with the attitude we have taken ? And, since the hon. gentleman finds fault with the position we have taken and that was made known to the House six weeks ago and more, how is it he dares not put his view in the form of a motion which can be debated before the House 1 It is not enough to have rambling speeches; but, if the opposition have a policy on this question, I would expect them to frame it in a motion that can go to the world and let us know what are their views on this question. We were invited to the conference to discuss three matters. We were invited to discuss the commercial situation, the political situation, and the military situation. Our answer has gone forth to the Imperial authorities that we are ready to discuss the commercial situation. Our answer has gone Mr. MACLEAN.

forth, at the same time, that we see little advantage in discussing the political situation or the military situation.

Now has my hon. friend anything to say to that position ? We stated to the Imperial authorities that, according to our way of thinking, the relations which at present bind Canada to the mother land are satisfactory. Is my hon. friend prepared to take another course upon this question ? Does he want to have the position in any way improved that now exists between Canada and Great Britain, or between Great Britain and the self-governing colonies ? If so, let him suggest in what way our present relations can be improved; let him say what he has to offer to the people of Great Britain or to the people of Canada in the way of improving the relations that now subsist between the two countries. In our own estimation, and I believe in the estimation of the hon. gentlemen who sit on this side of the House and in the estimation of the Canadian people at large, the relations which today bind Canada to the mother land cannot be improved-at least I do not see how. Possibly there may be some way of improving the presesnt condition, if there is, I am prepared here to discuss it. But my hon. friend must remember that this is not the first time that we have had to deal with this question. In 1897 we were invited in almost identical terms to discuss certain questions between the colonies and the motherland. A conference sat in London and the question of the political relations, the Imperial relations, was discussed ; they were discussed by the representatives of the Imperial government and of the self-governing colonies, that is to say, of Canada, New Zealand, Natal, the Cape Colony, New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, West Australia, South Australia, Tasmania and Newfoundland, and with two exceptions, all were unanimous in the opinion that the relations then subsisting between the colonies and Great Britain were perfectly satisfactory. Nothing has taken place since 1897 which would induce me, at all events, to change my mind, or would suggest any way by which those relations might be improved. The basis upon which the British empire rests, the basis upon which it has grown, has been the local autonomy of all its constituent parts, and I do not see that anything can be done at the present time which would warrant a change in that basis in any way whatever.

Now my hon. friend takes up another question. He says we have made a great mistake in refusing also to consider the military situation, in refusing to discuss a scheme for the general defence of the empire. My hon. friend says the government have made a great mistake, that the commercial question and the military question must go together. If that is the view taken by the hon. gentleman, that commerce and

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

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

Did the right hon. gentleman say any part of the expenditure ?

I have no hesitation in saying that I share altogether the views which have been expressed by Sir Charles Tupper more than once, that Canada has done more for the defence of the British empire by the construction of the Intercolonial Railway and the Canadian Pacific Railway, than she could have done by spending that money in military armaments. Certainly we must improve our own militia, and we have a scheme before us to-day for that purpose ; we must look after our own defences. But there is all the difference in

the world between undertaking this domestic military expenditure and embarking in such a scheme as is embraced by my hon. friend's vast conceptions. I do not share his views, and so long as my hon. friend wants to link together war and commerce, he will find me unalterably opposed to him.

I cannot agree to anything of the kind.

We are going to London simply to discuss the commercial question. That question we are prepared to consider, and it seems to me that our course has been a wise one. Great Britain, as it appears from the budget which was delivered yesterday, has entered upon a new line of taxation, I do not care whether you call it protection or not, but for the purposes of this discussion it is suffi-cent to say that England has opened up new avenues of taxation, she has gone back to the old duties on corn. It is very true that this new tax which has been imposed upon the English people is not large, I do not complain of that, I rather rejoice at it. But at all events, there is an opening, and since the British government has adopted this new line of taxation, the field is clear now for negotiations in a new direction at London next summer. What have we said in our answer to the invitation that has been given to us ? The answer we gave is, that we are ready to discuss with you the trade relations that exist between Canada and Great Britain, and between Canada and all the self-governing colonies. I do not despair that we may be able to lay down next summer in London the basis of a system which will improve the trade relations between Great Britain and her colonies and will establish freer trade between all sections of the British empire.

That is the view which I hold, that is the view which the government hold, and that is the view on which we are prepared to act and so far as he is concerned, I do not know whether it meets the views of my hon. friend or not. If it be that it does not meet his views, I am satisfied that it does meet the views of the great majority of the Canadian people. What the Canadian people are looking for at the present time, is the improvement of the trade relations which exist between the mother country and the colonies. Perhaps I am mistaken in the hope,I now express, perhaps it is premature to say it, but there is every reason to believe that we are facing the dawn of a new day, that peace is going to be at last restored to the British Empire, that this cruel war will soon be over, and if that be so, the conditions are more favourable than they ever were before for securing the improvement in our trade relations which we have in view. When we come back from Great Britain next summer it will be time enough for my hon. friend to find fault with the government if the government have not done, as he thinks, their duty. Whatever we may do, I am satisfied we would not please tiie heart of my hon. friend. I know that the better the arrangements we

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

The right lion, leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) seems to object very strongly to the wisdom of my hon. friend (Mr. Maclean) bringing this question up at the present time. As he could not bring it up at an earlier moment, on account* of the information contained in the papers and upon which he based his argument not being available, he is quite excusable in not having brought it up at an earlier date, but, that he does it at an opportune moment will be admitted by every right thinking man, because, it is during this time above all others that the attention not only of Canada but of the world is attracted to the very important divergence that has taken place from the old established custom of the mother country by the introduction of what may be fairly regarded as the protective system. In view of that he could not choose a better time than the present in which to let the mother country understand the strong desire of the Canadian colony' when a departure has been made from an old established principle, that her interests may be taken into account and that such provision may be made as will enure to the benefit of the colonies, if it is possible to make an arrangement of that kind. I think we are justified in believing-that had proper representations been made by the right hon. Prime Minister at the time of the last conference, that Canada desired above all other things some form of Inter-Imperial preferential trade between her and the mother country and the other colonies of the empire, England would have kept that representation in view, and in this departure, in all probability, she would have made provision for the introduction of a system of inter-imperial preferential trade. But, the right hon. Prime Minister says : I am not going to connect war and commerce. They have no connection, and 1 distinctly refuse to act upon that principle. Why, the history of the British efupire shows clearly that Great Britain has acted upon that prinicple. War and commerce are so indissolubly associated that they have never been separated. War is always the precursor of commerce, and after the resort to force, to the arbitrament of arms we have established our commercial relations with the country with which the empire was in conflict. There never will be a time in the history of England or of Canada more opportune than the present for the establishment of some new and mutually advantageous commercial relations. The time is not likely to come in the history of our country in our own life time, or per-Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

haps in the life time of those who come after us, and I say that there is no time in the history of the country when it is more important to depart from the old lines and to adopt new lines to meet new conditions than when the force of war when the arbitrament of war has given the Imperial government control of the country with which she was in conflict. That is the time above all others when commercial relations ought to be improved and established upon a basis that would be mutually advantageous to the colonies and the motherland as well. I do not think the right hon. gentleman's contention that there is no connection between war and commerce is one that will be held by the people of this country. Well, there is one thing that the right hon. gentleman lias told the English people, and it is that he will not inform them how it might be possible to make an improvement in the line of commerce and defence. We have Something in common with the mother country in connection with the question of defence, as we have something in common in connection with the question of commerce. We have mutual interests all seeking a common defence. The defence of one part of the British Empire is the defence of all. If England lost her power on the high seas Canada would have no status amongst the nations of the world, and it therefore becomes a matter of importance and interest to us as it is to England to have some common system of defence. But, how can this question fit in with our interimperial preferential trade in this way: A motion was made a few years ago laying down the lines as to how it could be accomplished. It was a motion proposing that the mother country and the colonies should collect a customs duty upon imports from all foreign countries, setting a small percentage apart for the purpose of common defence. I have no doubt it would be answered, if the right hon. gentleman were to answer it by saying that we will never concede the right to give away money without the right of saying how that money shall be expended. We need not do that. Having raised the money, having obtained a customs revenue for this purpose, would it not be proper to retain the expenditure in our own hands for the purpose of establishing the nucleus of a navy, and in this way assisting the British empire ? I do not see that it would necessarily follow that because we raise money we must give it away to the Imperial government to be expended as they like. If the colonies collected such a revenue, and if the mother country imposed a tax on foreign importations what would be the result ? It would accomplish what we desire to obtain, a measure of inter-imperial preferential trade that would give us the advantage of putting our goods down on the English market over any outside competitor in the world. Take the proposition which was announced yesterday in the British House

of Commons. A duty of 5 cents a hundred weight is placed on wheat. That is 3 cents a bushel. Suppose that had been put on the foreign product and not upon wheat coming from the colonies; that would have given us 3 cents a bushel more for our wheat in England than the American would receive. and they are our greatest competitors. See what an incentive it would be to immigration and to the settlement of our great North-west, where we can raise millions of bushels of wheat to supply the British army and the British people. See what an advantage a preference of 2 cents a bushel on wheat would be to our North-west farmers. We believe that if the Prime Minister had been alive to the situation, and had pressed that phase of it as strongly as he might when he was in England before, it would now be before the Imperial parliament, and they would in all probability have given us that advantage over the Americans. It has been written :

. There is a time in the affairs of men (and nations)

Which taken at the tide, leads on to fortune.'

We believe that one of these golden opportunities passed when the Prime Minister was in England. We believe that he missed a golden opportunity to strengthen the trade relations between the mother country and the colonies. AVe believe that he lost the opportunity of accomplishing great good for Canada. But another opportunity will come a few months hence. The Prime Minister of Canada is invited to England to consider the commercial relations between the mother country and the colonies, as well as the defences of the empire. He has refused to discuss the question of Imperial defence, but in my judgment the two questions are so indissolubly united that you cannot separate them without doing injustice to one or the other. The Prime Minister is doing less than the Canadian people expects of him when he refused to discuss both questions, because the discussion of our commercial relation without the discussion of Imperial defence can only be half hearted. AVe shall have another opportunity to discuss this matter at greater length and I shall not dwell further upon it now. I could not avoid saying something on the subject, seeing that it was introduced at the earliest possible moment to the notice of this parliament, and seeing also that the Prime Minister has proceeded in the past on the line that we have given to England a preference for which we ask nothing in return. The Minister of Agriculture made the same statement in England last year. This government is always ready to give away what belongs to Canada and to ask nothing in return for it. What a contrast with the policy of the Australian colonies who are alive to this question, and who want a mutual preference. But. Sir. cold water is thrown on this intercolonial

conference by the Canadian Prime Minister in advance. If the premier colony is not prepared to go to the length of discussing Imperial defence, that conference must lose a good deal of its importance seeing that the other colonies will not be sustained or supported by Canada. It is because we think our Prime Minister is not alive to the interests of Canada at this opportune moment, that we desire to draw his attention to the importance of the question, and to impress its importance on him when he comes to discuss these matters in England.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

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

I for one shall always maintain that so far as Canada is concerned, Canada must herself deal with the subject of contribution to Imperial defence. The parliament of Canada is the proper tribunal to deal with that, but I do not think it necessarily follows that the government of Canada should refuse as they have done, to even discuss that subject. I say that this country must deal with that subject and must control that subject, but I do not agree

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

Some . hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Well, Sir, if that be the case, it perhaps affords us food for reflection in discussing a subject of this kind. It does not, it seems to me, sound very well from the mouth of the Prime Minister of this pountry, that while he speaks of that question of liability which is laid upon the people of the British Isles, he should so absolutely shrink as he seems to from even a discussion of the subject of the defences of this country as part of the British empire. The growth of constitutional government in Canada has been gradual. It has progressed in every decade for the last sixty years, and the only step backward that has been taken in connection with our responsible government has been taken under the government of the right hon. gentleman, in connection with the subject of copyright. As I understand it, this government has receded from the attitude taken by Sir John Thompson, and which, if he had lived, he would have maintained to the full. I shall always maintain that Canada should advance, so far as the right to govern herself is concerned, and I regret that after sixty years of progress in that direction, the only retrograde step has been taken by the present government.

But, what I particularly call the attention of the House to is this : We on this side liave been asking the government for the past two or three years to endeavour to secure for Canada a preference in the British markets. All parties in this House and in this country have adhered to the opinion that that preference would be of great advantage to Canada. But, Sir, the only answer that we have ever got from hon. gentlemen on the other side is, that it was so supremely ridiculous that the mother country should think of imposing a tax on food stuffs, that the very absurdity of the proposition justified the Canadian government is taking no steps whatever for the ,

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax)

i purpose of securing such a preference for ; our food products.

1 Some hon. MEMBERS. Hear, hear.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman made an allusion to myself, which justifies me in offering a word or two in reply. It is unfortunate for hon. gentlemen opposite that they have never been able to found an argument on this question of preferential trade without entirely misstating the facts of the case.

Oh, oh. .

My hon. friends say oh, oh. A reference to what has

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

Who said that ?

My hon. friend from East York said it all through his speech.

No, no.

Practically that is what he said all through-that Sir Michael Hicks-Beach was prepared to do that. The hon. gentleman does not deny it. He knows that I am making a correct statement.

Mr., MACLEAN. I did not put it that way.

He did not put it that way, but he knows that that was the substance of what he said.

Mr. MACLEAN.

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

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

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