Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

t

than that, we find a statement in the despatch from the Secretary of State for the Colonies to the Governor General of the Australian Commonwealth, which is significant. perhaps, in this connection. On the 25th February, 1901, Mr. Barton presented a memorandum to His Excellency the Governor General of the Commonwealth and asked him to communicate that memorandum to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. I will not read the memorandum, but I may say, in a few words, it was for the purpose of ascertaining wliat would be the probable result if the Commonwealth of Australia should enact a tariff granting a preference to the mother country. The inquiry was whether or not it would result in the Commonwealth of Australia being excluded from the most favoured nation treatment by the German Empire. And the Secretary of State for the Colonies, in dealing with that question in the despatch to the Governor General of the Commonwealth of Australia, uses these words :

A copy of the 'correspondence will be forwarded to the Governor General of Canada with the request that he will ask his ministers for a report as to the consequences of the action taken by them not merely as regards their trade with Germany, but also as regards Iheir trade generally with the rest of the world.

And I suppose that a communication of that kind has been received by this government, and that an answer has been sent to that communication. But we can only know the fact of such communication having been received and an answer having probably been sent by referring to documents that, three months ago were laid on the Table of the Australian Commonwealth, and which, at the commencement of this session, should have been laid on the Table of this House. It would be interesting to know what the answer of the government is with respect to this question. I presume that this government has received the request of the Secretary of State for the Colonies, and has sent some answer, but this House, up to the present time, is absolutely ignorant on the subject.

Now, let us see on what grounds the action of Germany has been based in excluding Canada from the treatment that Germany extends to the rest of the British Empire. The despatches are not upon the Table of this House, but upon the Table of the Senate of Australia. I will not trouble the House with reading the des patches in full, but may quote a line or two from them which indicates as distinctly as possible that the denunciation of these treaties and the consequent result that the preference of 1897 extends to Great Britain and other portions of the empire and not to Germany and Belgium are solely responsible for the circumstance that Canada, at the present time, is excluded from the advantages of the most favoured nation treatment by Germany. Since the denunciation

of the treaty of 1865 between Great Britain and Germany, the latter country has granted to the United Kingdom and to other British colonies the same advantages as are granted to the most favoured nations, but has excluded Canada by name from such advantages, and has assigned as the reason that Canada-and now I quote the language of the German Chancellor-

Has accorded to imports from Great Britain customs advantages which she is not prepared to extend to imports from Germany.

Now, what does that amount to ? It amounts to this-that Canada is excluded from the favoured treatment accorded by Germany to other British colonies. Yet that has been occasioned by the denunciiftion of these treaties, which denunciation was carried out, as Lord Salisbury stated twice in his despatches, not in the interests of Canada but in the general interests of the empire. Would you not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that a fact such as that would have justified this government in making the strongest possible protest in being thus excluded by Germany from the treatment which she affords to the other portions of the empire ? Would you not suppose that not only this government but the imperial government as well, would have taken the strongest and most vigorous measures to assert that a policy of this kind adopted in the general interests of the empire, should not be made occasion for excluding one portion of the empire from the benefits that other portions receive ? These treaties may have been denounced at the instance of Canada, but not of Canada alone, for, if I remember the facts correctly, Canada had the support of other portions of the empire in the position she took. As a result of the denunciation of these treaties and of the legislation proposed by this government in 1898. Canada is excluded from the most favoured nation treatment, and remains excluded until this day-and remains excluded, so far as any information before the House shows, without a single word of protest by this government, without a line of which we have knowledge from any official document, making the vigorous remonstrance which should have been made as soon as these facts came to the attention of the government.

But this is not the worst of this matter. The government so framed their tariff of 1898, following in that respect the lines of the tariff of 1897. that Germany, while holding up this Canadian preference to imports from Great Britain as a reason for excluding us from her markets, has practically enjoyed a great measure of the advantages of the very preference of which she complains. We are excluded by Germany from the advantages of the most favoured nation treatment and are subjected to the effects of the maximum tariff of Germany. Yet Germany, at the same time, is sending her goods to Great Britain

in large quantities, and these goods, after receiving in the mother country the addition of a small percentage of work and some trifling additions of material, are coming into Canada by hundreds of thousands of dollars worth every year under the advantages of the preferential tariff. It seems to me that this is a very serious condition [DOT] of affairs. It is sue result of the policy of this government with regard to preferential trade, but it is not the only result, as I am about to point out. The next result of the making of this preferential tariff in 1897 was this :

The right hon. gentleman who leads this government went to London in 1897, and he delivered a number of speeches in various cities of Great Britain, more particularly in London, Liverpool, Manchester and Glasgow, and also at Birmingham, I think. He went to England after having been elected upon his pledge to this country that he would send commissioners to the mother country for the purpose of securing preferential trade wthin the empire. Yet, while in Great Britain he took the ground there that we did not desire preferential trade at all. that we had no desire whatever for any preference in the markets of the mother country. Now the language of the right lion, gentleman in Great Britain, which lias been often quoted, is as follows

I claim1 for the present government of Canada that they have passed a resolution by which the products of Great Britain are admitted on the rate of their tariff, at 124 per cent, and next year at 25 per cent reduction. This we have done, not asking any compensation.

There is a class of our fellow citizens who ask that all such concessions should be made for ' quid pro quo.'

And that was an expression which the hon. gentleman used in a great many speeches on the other side, I am only quoting one.

The Canadian government has ignored all such sentiments.

We have done it because we owe a debt of gratitude to Great Britain. We have done it because it is no intention of ours to disturb in any way the system of free trade which has done so much for England.

I could quote from a great many speeches of the hon. gentleman on the other side, if there should be any denial on the subject, in which he said that free trade was to be upheld in Great Britain at all possible hazards, that Canada did not desire anything in the world which would in any way affect the stability of free trade in the mother country, and that Canada generally speaking did not desire any return whatever for the preference which we had given to the mother country. Well, the right hon. gentleman continued :

What we give you by our tariff we give you in gTatitude for the splendid freedom under which we have prospered. It is a free gift. We ask no compensation. Protection has been the curse of Canada. We would not see you

come under ita baneful influence-for what weakens you must weaken us.

I am sure that when my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works realizes the full force of that language he will experience a shock which will incapacitate him from any further work in this House for two or three weeks at least. The right hon. gentleman thus deliberately renounced the intention he had expressed to the people of this country that he would do his utmost to procure a system of mutual preferential trade within the empire, and as a part of that system, a preference for Canada in the markets of the mother country. He did that without any mandate from parliament. Parliament had not passed upon the subject at all. He did that coming fresh from the people in a campaign in which he had given his pledge that he would do his utmost to secure this preference. And so far as we were able to judge at the time, he even did this without any mandate from his colleagues ; because, if report is to be believed, some of his colleagues were not particularly pleased at the very extreme way in which he expressed himself on that occasion with regard to this matter. The hon. gentleman, on his return to Canada, took an entirely different position. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that in England he said he did not desire any preference in the markets of the mother country, he did not desire any return for the preference we had given her, that we had done this as a free gift. The right hon. gentleman came back to Canada and went to Toronto, and what did he say there ? He told the people of Toronto that the reason he did not make any attempt in the mother country to obtain a preference, was, not because he did not want it, but because he knew he could not obtain it-a very different reason altogether. His language at Toronto was reported as follows :

If I had thought I could have obtained for the products of Canada preferential treatment in the markets of Great Britain, not only would I have been wanting in patriotism, but I would have been wanting in reason, I would have been simply an idiot if I had not obtained such preference for the products of Canada. ******

The treaties have been denounced, there is nothing in the way now, the coast is clear, the ground is ready for discussion.

While the hon. gentleman's position as expressed by him In Great Britain was that Canada did not want any preference, his position as stated in Toronto was that he did want a preference very much, but that he did not make any attempt to obtain it because he knew that he could not get it.

Now apparently the expression of opinion which he gave in Great Britain during 1897, is that which is entertained by some members of his cabinet up to the present time, because I notice that the Minister of Agriculture, on two or three occasions during the past year-I am quoting from newspapers Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

sent out under his own frank to members of pai'liamenit, anid I assume they contain a correct statement of his utterances- the Minister of Agriculture has taken upon himself in Great Britain during the past year, to tell the people that we wanted in return for this preference no preference in the markets of the mother country. ' Canada asks for no preference,' was what the hon. gentleman stated in Eiverpool on one occas-sion. He repeated the same thing in Manchester : * He was not going to ask for any advantage in their markets ' and so on. So the view which the right hon. gentleman expressed in 1897 seems to be the view of some of his colleagues at least even as late as 19Q0, because we have the Minister of Agriculture expressing that view to the people and the statesmen of the mother country during that year. Now would it not have been worth while for the hon. gentleman to have made some effort at least in the line of obtaining this preference in 1897 ? What have we been told with regard to the disposition of the mother country towards us at that time ? Why, we have heard the statement over and over again in this House and in this country, that the granting of this preference to the mother country caused the people and statesmen of that country to be very well disposed to us, to such an extent that we had practically a preference in the British market by reason of the fact that British consumers looked for Canadian goods instead of goods from other countries. Well, some figures which have been given to the House during the present session on the budget debate indicate that there was really nothing whatever in that idea. As a matter of fact, while imports to Great Britain from other countries have increased during the past years, imports from Canada in exactly the same articles have decreased during the past years. If the people and statesmen of the mother country had that favourable sentiment towards Canada in 1897, was it worth while for my right hon. friend to take the ground that he did, and to mislead the people in the mother country by telling them that Canada did not want any preference ? The *right hon. gentleman surely might have stopped short of that; he might at least have told the people of the mother country that he was elected upon a pledge to do his utmost to obtain a preference for Canada in the markets of the mother country, and that, provided the people of the mother country were willing, he was ready to discuss that question with them, and to do everything in his power to obtain that great boon for Canada. The hon. gentleman was very generous in giving away something which really did not belong to him. He was bound to protect Canada's rights in that respect, but he had no mandate from this country he had no mandate from this House, and I venture to think he had no mandate from his colleagues to give away the rights of

Canada in that respect by making the statement which he did in the mother country.

Now, since the right hon. gentleman took that course, the Liberal-Conservative party in this House have on various occasions affirmed its belief in the advantages of mutual preferential trade. On the 30tli day of March, 1900, Sir Charles Tupper moved the following resolution in this House :

This House is of opinion that a system of mutual trade preference between Great Britain and Ireland and the colonies would greatly stimulate increased prod action in and commerce between these countries and would thus promote and maintain the unity of the empireand that no measure of preference which falls short of the complete realization of such a policy should be considered as final or satisfactory.

The government did not accept that resolution and it was defeated. In 1901 I moved the following resolution in this House :

That in the opinion of this House the adoption of a policy of mutual trade preference within the empire would prove of great benefit to the mother country and to the colonies and would greatly promote the prosperity, unity and progress of the empire as a whole, and that the present time when the Commonwealth of Australia is laying the foundation of its fiscal system, Is particularly opportune for taking prompt and energetic steps towards the furtherance of this object.

This House is further of opinion that equivalent or adequate duties should be imposed by Canada upon the products and manufactures of countries not within the empire in all eases where such countries fail to admit Canadian products and manufactures upon fair terms and that the government should take for this purpose all such available measures as may be found necessary.

This resolution was not accepted by the government and was voted down. Tbe main grounds which the government and their supporters took in voting down this resolution were twofold. In the first place, they put forward the absolute hopelessness of expecting the mother country to Impose duties on foodstuffs. I will not weary the House by going over the debate and pointing out," in the language of almost every one of these hon. gentlemen, the argument which was based upon that supposed aspect of the question. But, I will quote from the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) who said in his speech in 1897 : All the advocates of preferential trade, at all events all who have taken an active part in that movement, have assumed that,, as the first step, England must consent to put a duty on corn. We know that England does not view that project with favour. We know that no more unpopular project can he offered the English people than to ask them to put a duty on bread-stuffs.

In 1900 the hon. gentleman, in an interview in Montreal, I think, said :

There are three points which Sir Chirles Tupper would like to make, but In not one of them is there any foundation for his efforts. He continues to talk about the Conservative party obtaining a tariff preference for Canadian products in England ; that Is to say, that Great Britain would impose duties on foreign foodstuffs while admitting those of Canada free. Thi3 13 an old cry with Sir Charles Tupper, but no one knows better than he does that it is arrant humbug.

Everybody who has had a correct view of English public opinion has been and is still aware that such tariff legislation in Great Britain for the present or the early future is impossible.

Well, our position in regard to this matter was that the policy of Canada should be a policy of action and not a policy of inaction. We did not believe it as impossible as hon. gentlemen argued on the other side that Great Britain would be disposed to impose a tax upon foodstuffs and upon corn.

At all events, we said, it is in tbe interests of Canada that efforts should be made for the purpose of inducing Great Britain to grant us a preference in her markets. It may be true, we said, that the project does not meet with favour in Great Britain at the present time, but what we read in the press of Great Britain, and of the utterances of statesmen in Great Britain at the present time leads us to suppose that a change in public sentiment in regard to that particular matter is rapidly coming about in the mother country. And it is the duty of this government, we said, having regard to that probable change, not to sit supinely in a state of inaction and say it is impossible, but to make some effort in the matter, because Canada will be none the worse off if you do make some effort and take some action, while on' the other hand it may result in some very material advantage to this country.

Even more significant is the language which the right hon. leader of the government used in this House in the debate of 1901 in which debate be put forward the other argument which has been used against this proposition-the other argument which is that unless Canada is prepared not only to give up her policy of protection, but her customs tariff also, it is absolutely hopeless to suppose that you can ever obtain a preference of this kind or any system of mutual preferential trade within the empire. I was surprised on looking over the debate to find the extent to which the right hon. gentleman had gone in making an assertion of that character and I find that the position he took, as the leader of his party, supported by many statements of lion, gentlemen who followed him in that debate, was this. In the debate upon a resolution introduced by me in 1901, tbe right hon. gentleman used this language :

Allusion has been made very often to my trip to England and to the position I took there. The position I took there was this : I acted like a reasonable man, I saw at once that it could not be possible, so great is the free trade sentiment in England, to have a mutuality of preference so long as we continue to levy customs duties upon English goods. But the moment we are ready-it may take a long time, but I hope some day it shall come-to discard our

tariff, the moment we come to the doctrine of free trade, then it is possible to have a commercial mutual preference based upon free trade in the empire.

The right hon. gentleman continues even more strongly. Referring to the Conservatives' quid pro quo argument, the premier said :

Such a policy would not be received in Great Britain, it is not to be taken seriously. It is

not a thing to be discussed seriously

If we are at any time to obtain mutual preferential trade between Great Britain and Canada -and more thah once I have stated that for my part, I think it would be a great advantage for Canada, but if we are to obtain it, upon what condition can we have it V

I would like to call the attention of the House to what the right hon. gentleman stated to be the condition :

We can have it perhaps upon one condition, but we cannot discuss it unless we have that condition.

Mark you, we cannot discuss it even unless we have that condition.

We cannot even discuss it as long as we have a protective tariff or a customs tariff in Canada. That is the position which I have taken again and again.

That is the right hon. gentleman's language used only last year. He says that we are pointing in the direction of free trade. We have not absolutely got free trade but we are pointing in the direction of free trade. I believe that the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) is pulling back in the traces upon that particular question, as hard as he can, but the right hon. gentleman who leads him tells us that we are pointing in the direction of free trade. We are not even in a position to discuss mutual preferential trade with the mother country unless we give up, not only our protective tariff, but even our customs' tariff as well. The right hon. gentleman has told the right hon. Secretary of State for the Colonies that he wants to discuss the question of commercial relations within the empire. That is the only subject mentioned by the Secretary of State for the Colonies which lie thinks it will be useful or profitable to discuss. What does he mean by commercial lelations within the empire ? If he means anything surely he is alluding to a mutual preferential trade within the empire. If he was alluding to anything else, when he used the expression ' commercial relations within the empire ' as a subject for discussion perhaps he will be good enough to tell us what it was, and until he does so I shall assume that he had reference to that subject. But. lie lias told us that we cannot even discuss it at the present time unless we are ready to give up, not only our protective tariff but our customs tariff. These were not light words which the right hon, gentleman i used in the debate last year. These were well-matured views. These words were , considered, no doubt, and these are words

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

that were reiterated over and over again in the speech-that unless we were prepared to give up, not only our protective tariff, but our customs tariff as weU, we were not even in a position to discuss the question of mutual preferential trade within the empire. My right hon. friend will not discuss political relations; he says that except in a few minor points they are all right. He will not discuss the question of imperial defence, and he cannot discuss the question of commercial relations within the empire. It then follows, necessarily, that the right hon. gentleman must go there, sit in the conference and never open his mouth and it will not be necessary for him, in so far as any useful or practical result is concerned, to delay any holiday trip he may have in view after attending the Coronation ceremonies as he has precluded himself from saying anything useful upon this subject. After he had told the people of the mother country in 1897 that we did not want a preference, he sent his Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Fisher) over there during the past year to reiterate that statement and he did so. He has told the people of the mother country that he will not discuss the question of political relations, that he will not discuss the question of imperial defence and he told the people in a well considered speech last year that we were not in a position to discuss the question of mutual preferential Hade at alii unless we were prepared to give up not only the protective system in Canada, but our customs tariff as well.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the right hon. gentleman lis going to the conference, and if he proposes to enter into any discussion upon the subjects which have been mentioned ; we are entitled to know what the policy of the government is with regard to these'different subjects. The right hon. gentleman's conduct did not commend itself to this side of the House at least, when he told the people of the mother country in 1897. that Canada did not want a preference. We are entitled to know what the attitude of the government is now, and we are entitled to know even what steps the government have taken with regard to mutual preferential trade within the empire during the past few months.

In the months of January and February ; nay, as far back as the months of November and December of last year, it was in the air, it was in the press, it was all over England and all over Canada, that duties were likely to be imposed on foodstuffs by the mother country. What steps have the government of Canada taken for the purpose of securing complete or partial exemption from these duties ? Have they lifted their finger for that purpose ? In view of the preference of 33J per cent which we have given the mother country, have we made any presentation pointing out that ray right hon. friend did not correctly inform the mother country in 1897. when he stated that

we want no preference. Have the Canadian government taken any -steps to withdraw that declaration ? Have they taken any steps to point out that Canada at the present time is very desirous that there should be an exemption of Canadian products from this tax, either in whole or in part. If the government of Canada have not done that, they have not done their duty. I have examined to some extent what has taken place in the English parliament, because it would seem to be hopeless to obtain information from this government on the subject; and I find that a member of the imperial parliament was informed bv the government that a letter from Cord Strath-cona had been received by the imperial government upon this subject. Well, a letter from Lord Strath-conn is not exactly the way in which we would expect a communication of this kind to go to the imperial government. We would suppose that there would be a memorandum and a communication from the Governor General to the Colonial Secretary, and we would expect that a communication of that kind would within a reasonable delay, and particularly during the session of parliament, be laid upon the Table of this House. There can be no excuse whatever for the Canadian government taking no steps in this matter, because their attention was very often directed to it through the public press, and many commercial bodies passed resolutions on the subject asking the Canadian government to bring the matter to the attention of the British government. On the 21st of April last -the right lion, gentleman stated that copies of these documents which had been forwarded to this government would be laid upon the Table of the House. Although a considerable delay has elapsed they have not yet been laid on the Table, but I happen to have a copy of one of them which I shall read. I suppose there must have been so many of these that the great volume of the correspondence between the Boards of Trade and the government has caused delav in the copying. However, the Board of Trade of the City of Toronto, on the 10th of February. 1002. passed a resolution which is in the following words :

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

My right hon. friend will pardon me. I do not remember using any such expression as that which he attributes to me.

I am very glad that my hon. friend takes exception to my observation; but if I were permitted to refer to a past debate, I could quote expressions which have been used in this House and repeated over and over again by the press which supports the hon. gentleman, with reference to this despatch as wanting in courtesy.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

I think my right hon. friend is referring to some observations made by the hon. member for East York (Mr. Maclean).

It is sufficient, Mr. Speaker, that my hon. friend disclaims that intention, and I will not pursue that matter any further. I now come to the substance of the answer. My hon. friend says we ought to be prepared to discuss the subject of imperial defence. I think I am correctly stating the position he has taken this

evening. I may observe to my hon. friend upon this subject that the conference will be composed of representatives of the imperial government and the self-governing colonies. It will include representatives from Canada, Australia, New Zeland, Newfoundland, Natal, and Cape Colony, and perhaps a few others. It will be open to all members of this conference to bring to its consideration any subject he may please. We all know that the First Minister of New Zealand, Mr. Seddon, proposes to bring to its attention the subject of imperial defence, and if we are to credit the newspaper reports which have appeared recently, the Premier of Australia, Mr. Barton, has rather taken the same course we have and deprecated the introduction of any such subject. At all events, we shall be there, at the invitation of the imperial government, to discuss all the subjects mentioned in the despatch 1 have read, and we propose to discuss them in the spirit of the reply we have given. That is to say, while we are prepared to discuss this question of imperial defence, neither my colleagues nor myself believe that any useful purpose can he served by such discussion. It is no use whatever, at this stage of the proceeding, on the floor of tliis Canadian parliament, to try to deceive ourselves as to what is intended by this subject of imperial defence. If it be intended simply to discuss what part Canada is prepared to take in her own defence, what share of the burden must fall upon us as being responsible for the safety of the land in which we were born and to which we owe our allegiance, in which all our hopes and affections are centered, certainly we are always prepared to discuss that subject. Nor do I believe that we need any prompting on that subject or that our attention should be specially called to it. Even this very session the government has given its pledge to the House that it is prepared to consider and to the fullest extent to carry out its duty on this score, and in that declaration the government received the support of both sides. But there is a school abroad, there is a school in England and in Canada, a school which is perhaps represented on the floor of this parliament, which wants to bring Canada into the vortex of militarism which is now the curse and the blight of Europe. I am not prepared to endorse any such policy. But the Canadian delegates will give a respectful hearing to all the propositions that may be made, and it is in this spirit I speak, and speak with candour. My hon. friend asked me to give expression to our intentions. Well, I can assure him that I intend to perform the duties which will devolve upon me when in England. I am speaking my full mind and have given my answer as to the position we hold on this question, an answer which I think should satisfy him. My hon. friend has not mentioned the political relations which we are invited to discuss in the des-

patch of Mr. Chamberlain, and since he has thought fit to leave that matter aside I shall follow his example.

But he has come to the commercial relations and prefaced his remarks on this subject by expressing the hope that we a up all one in desiring a mutual preference between Canada and Great Britain. He expressed the hope that all parties were as one on that subject, but I must say that I am sufficiently incredulous to doubt my hon. friends sincerity. I have heard a good many expressions on this subject from my hon. friend and his friends behind him. I have heard them state more than once that they were in favour of a mutual preference, but notwithstanding all declarations I have heard on the subject from these gentlemen, notwithstanding the many eloquent speeches from the other side on this topic, I am yet in doubt whether or not it is the sincere wish of hon. gentlemen opposite to have a mutual preference. I will not go over the speeches they have made. I shall not follow my hon. friend in quoting from scrap books, but shall content myself with the single declaration just spoken by my hon. friend himself and to which he invited and received the full concurrence of his followers. I refer to the resolution, moved and voted on this session, and which reads in this way :

This House, regarding ihe operation of the present tariff as unsatisfactory, is of opinion that this country requires a declared policy of such adequate protection to its labour, agricultural products and manufacturing industries, as will at all times insure the Canadian market for the Canadians.

Now, Sir, if the Canadian market is to be secured for Canadians, where is the preference to come for British goods? What place is to be left in the Canadian market for the British ? What is the preference these hon. gentlemen are going to give Great Britain if we are to have protection ? Protection against whom ? Against the United States ? Of course. Against Germany ? Of course. Against France ? As a matter of course. And against England ? As a matter of course also. If that is the policy of these lion, gentlemen, if they have nailed protection to the mast of the ship they intend to sail, if their policy is protection against the world, Canada for the Canadians, I want to know what is the preference we are to give British goods. My hon. friend told me a moment ago that he was ready to vote in favour of a resolution of which I shall speak in a few moments, and I want him to supplement his resolution by instructing me as to what goods of Canadian manufacture, our manufacturers are willing to sacrifice at the colonial conference next summer. I would ask him if, in his opinion, Canada should give a preference to British woollens. I see the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Brock) before me. He wants a preference given Great Britain, I know, but I would like to know if he is prepared to

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

give the British manufacturer a preference on woollen goods.

Mr. BROCK.

Yes, if we have a preference in return in the English market.

I am glad to hear that my hon. friend from Toronto is prepared to sacrifice his woollens. I have heard him more than once complain that the preference we had given had killed the manufacture of woollens here.

We get no preference in return.

My hon. friends opposite are in favour of a preference to Great Britain in words. Let us hope that they are in fact also.

Mr. BROCK.

Hear, hear.

must find, a common ground upon which both the people of Britain and the people of the colonies can stand, each side giving up some thing, and so bring Britain and the colonies to an agreement acceptable to all. My hon. friend says : What are you going

to propose ? We will first listen to the propositions made to us by the British authorities I assume, from the statements I have in hand that the government of Great Britain has propositions to make to the colonies, upon this matter of commercial relations; for, if not, it would be worse than folly to ask us to discuss the matter. After we" have listened to the propositions made to us by the imperial government we can see whether we can accept them; and whether we can or can not accept them, we go there with the intention of trying, if possible, to secure preferential treatment for the goods of Canada in the British market. That is the object we have in view.

Now, Sir, my hon. friend told us a moment ago that he would be pleased if this House could pass a resolution unanimously. I am quite prepared to say that I should be glad to confer upon that subject with my hon friend. Since he has offered me this olive branch I am ready to meet him and to discuss a resolution or a proposition which we can put into such a shape that it can be adopted unanimously. That is the only answer which at this moment I am ready to make to my hon. friend. He wanted to have a candid answer from me upon the question that he has put to me. I think 1 am able to say that I have answered his question candidly in every point; I have answered candidly upon the military question, I have answered candidly upon the commercial question ; and if my hon. friend is disposed to continue to he conciliatory he will find that I should be only too glad to meet him half way in anything that he has to propose.

Mr. W. R. BROCK (Centre Toronto).

The right hon. gentleman the Prime Minister, in commencing his reply, if it can be called a reply, to the address that was delivered by the leader of the opposition, stated that it was to be regretted that the leader of the opposition had left this very important question, probably the most important question that could come before this House or this country, to be discussed so near the end of the session. I think, Sir, It was a great reflection upon the Prime Minister himself that he should have left, not only this House, but this whole country in positive ignorance and darkness as to the position he was going to take when going to England to discuss this question. I can say that at the present time, not only the eyes of this House and of this country, but I think the eyes of the whole empire are upon the Canadian government, wondering what position they will take at this critical time. The fact that the Prime Minister and his govern-Rir WILFRID LAURIE R.

ment have neglected to indicate what position they are going to take is a reflection upon the political acumen which the Prime Minister prides himself upon. The national, the political and the business position of this country at the present time is an object lesson as well as an object to the whole civilized world. This parliament representing the Dominion of Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, a land that is now being pointed to all over the world as a good land and a desirable land to occupy, this parliament has been here for nearly three months and we still have no indication of a definite and well defined policy-for no government is worthy of the name that has not a policy and a well defined policy. This country wants to know, and the British Empire wants to know what that defined policy is. This House has listened as usual with delight to the eloquent words of the leader of the government, and I defy any hon. gentleman to stand up in his place and say what is the policy that the government intend to carry out when they go to England. The Prime Minister says they are going to listen to what is being said by others. I contend that this government, with a Prime Minister with a reputation such as our Prime Minister has got, should go there to do something mere than listen, they should go there to lead. We are constantly told by the English parliament and statesmen that they look to us for guidance in matters of commerce.

But I think if we look into this matter we will find that some of the difficulties of the Prime Minister come from his own colleagues. They are hampered by the wild statements some of them made when they went before the people in 1896. The Prime Minister asks : If we protect Canada for

Canadian goods, what have we to give to England ? I ask him to look across the border. The United States have protected up to the hilt everything they can manufacture in that country, and yet they are one of the largest importers of British goods on the face of the globe. They collect a very large amount of duty on British goods. Is this not an example for us ? Can we not protect our own industries and at the same time import an immense amount of English goods ? And we give English goods a preference over all the rest of the world. While we are importing at the present time German goods and paying full duty upon them, we are importing a much larger quantity of German goods surreptitiously into this country through England, through the supineness and weakness of the policy adopted when the Prime Minister was in England. After having secured the denunciation of the German and Belgium treaties, the Prime Minister asks what more can we do ? Germany and Belgium have placed us on the black list. Could we not have asked Great Britain to intercede for us, to avail herself of the great ability of her statesmen and

her great reputation, to ask Germany to recede from the position she has taken in consideration of Great Britain receiving German goods free ? I contend that when Lord Salisbury stated that he was doing this for the benefit of the empire he meant what he said. We know what the empire includes. Could he not, then, in the interest of the empire, have said to Germany, either give Canada the same duties you give the rest of the empire, or the empire will put a duty upon your goods coming into Great Britain. Are you aware, Mr. Speaker, what that would mean ?. It would mean that one-third of the whole business of the German empire would be cut off. London is one of the greatest distributors of German goods and continental goods on the face of the earth. The Germans have their samples there, they have their market there, it is their greatest market. German goods come into England and are sold in England, and in many cases are carried in British bottoms to foreign countries. Therefore, I contend that Lord Salisbury meant what he said, and we know a British statesman always means what he says. We have some doubt in our own country as to what our statesmen mean when they speak, but we have no doubt about the word of British statesmen. When Lord Salisbury said that he meant this for the benefit of the empire, it was for the benefit of the British empire, and not for the detriment of this particular part of it. Therefore I contend that the position taken by the Prime Minister in England was one of the most unfortunate things that ever happened to the empire. He says that we want no return, that we did this out of good feeling and good will. These are very good sentiments, they would be good sentiments if we were a wealthy country and were able to give something for nothing. But we are inviting British immigrants, and immigrants from all parts of the world, to come into Canada, and I contend that the present is the time above all others when this matter should be settled. I desire to endorse the statement of my leader that the Prime Minister will not be hampered from this side of the House if he goes with a business proposition to the old country and not a sentimental one.

When the Prime Minister goes to England he will go, I have not the slightest doubt, with the very best intention in his heart to do what is best for Canada. I am proud to say that of him as a Canadian statesman. But he will go to England hampered by divided opinions, prompted on one side by a free trade wing and on another side by a protection wing. Even in his own cabinet he finds a difficulty in getting unanimity of opinion ; therefore it does not lie in his mouth to throw any reflections on this side of the House.

We are a united party ; we are where we have stood for the last quarter of a century

for the ascendancy of the British Empire, but Canada for the Canadians always. The Right Hon. Prime Minister cannot see where we can have Canada for the Canadians and go to England and ask for a preference in the English market. Is it not better for Great Britain to have a strong and vigorous dependency in Canada than to have a weakling ? Anything which Great Britain can do to increase the strength of her dependencies *she will do as she has done in the past. We have been invited to go to England and to discuss questions for the Improvement of the whole empire. We may not be able to agree, but I cannot see why that is any reason why the right hon. gentleman should not toe willing to discuss any suggestions which may toe made for the improvement of the defences of the empire. Is the defence of the empire of no consequence to Canada ? We have manfully undertaken to defend the empire in the past and we will do our best to defend the empire whenever we are called upon to do so. I know the difficulties which surround the right hon. gentleman. I know the great political strength he has in his own province of Quebec and I can see the difficulties arising day by day. We find now that one of the right hon. gentleman's strongest supporters during the last two or three elections, a gentleman with whom he has some difficulty at the present time, has acquired a newspaper. We find that Mr. Bourassa has acquired possession of a paper called, T think, the Pioneer. That is a menace to the right hon. gentleman because the right hon. gentleman wishes to get all the support he can from that hon. gentleman and from those people who endorse his opinions-I will not say disloyal opinions, tout who support these opinions in the province of Quebec very strongly, so that the party that sits on the other side of the House must not and cannot despise this hon. gentleman. These opinions carry great weight in the province of Quebec, -because they are in accord with the opinions, probably, not of the majority, but of a very respectable minority of the people in that province. These are the difficulties that the right hon. gentleman has and we sympathise with him under those circumstances. They are causing him great difficulty every day. As to discussing witli Great Britain the political relations of the empire I do not think there is any difficulty about that. The right hon. gentleman can go to England and discuss these political relations, he can hold his own opinions, and we can trust him to hold his own opinions in an argument with very great ability. But. he seems to express some doubt and difficulty : when he arrives there he may find that his opinions are not in accord with those of the representatives of the rest of the empire. Have we not found that out before ? When the right hon. gentleman meets the representatives of the other parts of the empire he should be very candid I in expressing the opinion of this country

and the opinion of this country is dcidedi.v 'in the direction of protection to our own industries. This is one thing upon which the country can stand as a unit and he can assert that fact with absolute confidence. [DOT]We have had some remarkable conversions to this House. Coming from North Norfolk, 'we have an hon. gentleman (Mr. Charlton) 'who has warned the right lion, the Prime 'Minister that the opinions of the people of this country are not changing but rather that the politicians who advocated free *trade are changing. We will have to change, the Prime Minister will have to change before we get from the empire that which *we think is our due. Therefore. I would urge upon the right hon. gentleman before *going to Great Britain upon this occasion to take counsel with the leader of the Opposition as he has asked him to do. I think [DOT]it is necessary that he should do so and if he will be guided by this side of the House >on this occasion it will cause him to be [DOT]more successful than when visiting England last.

Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk).

'My hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Brock) who has just taken his seat speaks very *truly when he says that the coming conference at London will be an event of very [DOT]great importance indeed. 1 can sympathise with the regret which the hon. gentleman *expressed that this important question has *not been made the subject of discussion in [DOT]this House at an earlier stage of the session for it certainly deserves an exhaustive discussion and I apprehend that the government will be pleased to hear a general expression of opinion from members of this House upon both sides of your Chair. The [DOT]criticisms in regard to the conduct of the [DOT]government and of the statements of the [DOT]government in the despatch to the Secretary of State for the Colonies as regards the subject of imperial defence are criticisms that I cannot fully accord with. I believe that [DOT]the interests of Canada should be a paramount consideration for every citizen of Canada, and I believe that Canada is guided by a spirit of loyalty, is prepared to do *its duty by the mother country, has done it [DOT]heretofore and will do it in the future, but I am not prepared to say, Sir, that bonds *should be laid on the country, that enactment should be agreed to and that we *should be subjected to hard and fast conditions as to the character of the support that we shall give to the mother country, as to *the amount of our contribution, as to the *number of men that we should furnish, but,

I believe, on the contrary that all these matters should be left to the voluntary choice of the people of this Dominion. We have been developing as a countrv for 140 *years and there has been during all that time a constant and regular tendency and progress towards self control. We had disturbances in 1837 which resulted in giving this country responsible government ; we en-

Mr. BROCK.