1. Yes.

2. Tenders were invited for the construction of the section of the Trent canal between Trenton and Frankford on the 24th of November,, 1899.

Mr. WARD asked :

Is it the intention of the government to havo any further survey of the proposed continuation of the Trent Valley canal between Rice lake and Lake Ontario, before proceding with the work ?

The question is under the consideration of the government.

1. Has Peter J. Carlin been dismissed from the position of postmaster at Whitney Pier, in the county of Cape Breton, Nova Scotia ?

2. If so, when was he dismissed, and for what reason or cause ?

Mr. Peter J. Carlin, late postmaster, without the consent of the department, removed the post office some distance from the old site. It was considered that Mrs. Gallivan's building was a more desirable location and the change was accordingly made.

Mr. Speaker. In pursuance of the notice which I gave some few days ago in answer to a question from my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), I shall now proceed to give to the House the ministerial explanation which the House expects from the government as to the changes which took place some few months ago in the composition of the cabinet. In these modern days such explanations have not the importance which they had at one time, because, in these modern days, with the methods of publicity there is nothing that I could tell the House of which the House has not already been informed. In the month of September last, whilst I was in Europe, on the continent, I received several communications from Canada calling my attention to the course pursued by my hon. friend the present member for the division of St. Mary's (Montreal), at that time my colleague in the cabinet and then Minister of Public Works. It was represented to me that my hon. friend was pursuing a course which was not consistent with the rules of parliamentary government inasmuch as he was advocating a policy which was at variance with the policy hitherto followed by the government of which he was a member. I thereupon ordered that all the Canadian newspapers should be sent to me in London to await my arrival there on my way back to Canada. When I returned to London from the continent I found these news-

papers and on the long passage I had abundant time to acquaint myself with the new situation which had been created by the action of my hon. friend, the then Minister of Public Works, and I had to come to the conclusion that the representations which had been made to me certainly required an investigation on my part. The policy of the government on the fiscal question was laid "down for the last time during last session by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in making the budget speech, and on that occasion he made use of the following language :

We do not propose to make any changes In the tariff this session. I do not for a moment claim that the tariff is perfect. I think, that, on the whole, it has proved a very good tariff. Indeed, when we recall the circumstances under which our tariff revision took place, when we remember the very complicated and difficult problem with which we had to deal, we may well congratulate ourselves upon our success in devising a tariff so well adapted to the requirements .of the country, a tariff under which Canada has prospered in a greater degree than in any previous period in her history. I have occasionally pointed out the desirability of a reasonable measure of tariff stability. Nothing would be more likely to unsettle business thin a practice of introducing frequent tariff changes. Hence, we have resisted applications for many small changes and we think it well to do so to-day. But I would not have it understood that this view can always be held. As time passes, conditions change in our own country and it will be well for us to take note of this, so that we may adjust the tariff accordingly. Nor is that the only reason that might require some change. Conditions arise in other countries of which we are obliged to take account. We do not propose that we shall stand still and that this tariff shall remain unchanged, but we think the time is not opportune for making changes at present.

Then, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance went on to say that at that very moment it would not be advisable to make tariff changes, amongst other reasons, for this reason that we had just completed the census and that we had not yet before us the condition of the industries of the country revealed by the census. Another reason was that at that very moment we were engaged in some correspondence with some foreign countries, amongst others, Germany, with) the view, if possible, of bettering the condition of our trade with them, and another reason was that we were engaged to proceed at,short notice during the then coming summer to London to engage in the approaching conference, and we knew for a certainty that the tariff conditions which prevailed between the motherland and this country would be examined. These were some of the reasons why my hon. friend, speaking for the government, did not deem it advisable to have a tariff revision and he concluded as follows :

For these reasons we postpone for the present the question of tariff revision. When the moment for revision arrives, the public of Canada may rest assured that the government will

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

undertake the work in the spirit of moderation and caution that has prevailed in their past actions in tariff affairs, avoiding the extremes which almost always find advocates, and having regard to what is best, not for particular industries or particular sections of the country, but for the interests of the people of the whole Dominion.

1 have only to remark at this moment that in holding this language my hon. friend was speaking officially, that he was giving the result of the determined policy that for the present no tariff changes should take place and that we would stand by the policy which was then on the statute-book and that this was to be the case until the condition of the country might require us to recommend a departure from that policy. Such being the condition of things and the policy so laid down In the course pf that summer, my hon. friend the then Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Tarte) and the present member for St. Mary's division of the city of Montreal, entered into a campaign advocating the immediate revision of the tariff in the sense of higher duties and more stringent protection. For the purposes of the present question-for the purposes of the constitutional question which is the only question at present before the House and with which I intend to deal-it was of no circumstance whatever whether my hon. friend advocated an increase of the tariff or a decrease of the tariff. The error ; the constitutional error was the same ; it mattered not whether he advocated to revise the tariff up or down. The one important thing was that being a member of the administration he was bound by the policy laid down by the member of the cabinet who had authority to speak upon this subject and whose voice had been heard upon the floor of this House in no uncertain tone, and who had laid it down as plain as language could make it : That the government would not under existing circumstances admit of any tariff changes.

I know very well, Sir, and the House need not be told by me, that the gentlemen who are assembled at the council board are not expected to be any more unanimous in their views because they sit at council, than would be expected from any other body of men. It Is In human nature to differ. It is in human nature, even for the best of friends ; even for men professing the same views politically to differ and to differ materially on some points. But the council sits for the purpose of reconciling these differences-the council sits for the purpose of examining the situation and having examined it, then to come to a solution which solution then becomes a law to all those who choose to remain in the cabinet. It would be a mere redundancy for me to affirm that the necessity for solidarity between the members of the same administration is absolute ; that the moment a policy has been determined upon, then it becomes the duty of every member of that

administration to support it and to support it in its entirety. It can be possible that a member of the cabinet who assented to that policy may not be convinced that it is for the best; it may be possible that he thinks a wiser course could have been taken. But if he remains in the cabinet, it is because he thinks that on the whole it is better that his views on that subject should give -^ay to the views of others, and that whilst his own judgment is not in accord with the judgment of his colleagues, still it is for the best interest of the country that he should resign his judgment to theirs, and continue to occupy a position in the cabinet.

I am also aware that in some instances- not in many instances I must say-a man speaking upon the impulse of the moment may perhaps be led to take a view which is not the view which would be entertained by his colleagues, but if that remains an isolated instance no serious harm could come of it. An appeal from the Prime Minister to the man who has so spoken is generally sufficient to promote harmony and to make him understand that whether he agrees or not he must come to the view held by the cabinet. But when a policy has been determined upon ; solemnly agreed upon and solemnly promulgated to the House and to the people, I need not tell the House-and I think my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) ought to be the first to agree-that under such circumstances it is not only the duty politically of a member of the cabinet, but it is his duty both as a friend and as a member of the party, to stand by that policy. And, if at a later stage he thinks that the policy is wrong, that it ought to be improved, that it ought to be amended ; then the battle, or the action is to be taken, not before the public, not before the constituencies, but the reform has to be advocated in the first place in the cabinet of which he is a member.

My hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Tarte) however did not follow these rules. My hon. friend took another course and I think he will agree with me that the language is not too strong when I say, that he started upon a campaign for the purpose of advocating a policy in favour of immediate revision of the tariff in the sense of higher duties and higher protection. At the banquet of the Manufacturers' Association in Halifax he declared for such a policy. He repeated the same theory at Gananoque, at Chatham, and at several other places. If it had been an isolated expression, not repeated, not followed by any other, I think the evil done, the course pursued might have been susceptible of being reclaimed. But as my hon. friend started upon a campaign and repeated the course which he had first adopted, and made it plain to the country that what he was aiming at was an immediate revision of the tariff in the sense 1 have indicated against the stated policy of the administration of which he was a mem-6i

her ; there was no course for me to take but the course which I thought it advisable to take as soon as I landed in Canada. And as soon as I landed into Canada I came to the conclusion that the conduct and language of my hon. friend made it imperative upon me to take action immediately in that way.

I arrived in the city of Ottawa on the 18th of October. On the 19th, that is to say the following day, I had an interview with my hon. friend and I met him at his own house. The following morning my hon. friend called at my office early in the morning before his departure for the city of Toronto where he was to speak that same evening. The next stage which I had to take in the discharge of my duties, such as I understand them, was to call upon His Excellency the Governor General to acquaint him of the situation and the judgment which I had formed upon it, and then to meet my colleague which I did upon the same day, namely, the 20th. On the following day, the 21st of October, I received by mail from my hon. friend the following letter :

Toronto, 20th Oct., 1902.

My dear Sir Wilfrid,-I feel it is my duty to place my resignation in your hands, and to ask you to be good enough to have it accepted by His Excellency the Governor General.

In the interview which I had with you, you expressed the opinion that I should not have spoken on the tariff as I have done, that the government had not as yet come to any definite understanding on their fiscal policy for- the future, &c.

I shall not discuss with you' at the present time, the question as to whether I was right or wrong in the course I have followed.

You are the leader of the government, and your opinion, as far as my attitude is involved, must prevail.

You told me that my utterances are causing you trouble. I have no right and no desire to be a source of embarrassment to you or to the party with which I have been connected since 1892.

My views on the tariff are well known to you. I have, on several occasions, stated them publicly in your presence and discussed them often privately with you.

Entertaining the opinion that the interests of the Canadian people make it our duty to revise, without delay, the tariff of 1897, with the view of giving a more adequate protection to our industries, to our farming community, to our workingmen, I cannot possibly remain silent.

I prefer my freedom of action and of speech, under the circumstances, even to the great honour of being your colleague.

Before severing my official relations with you, allow me to express my sincerest hope that you will soon be restored to your health of former days.

You would greatly oblige me by conveying to my colleagues my best wishes for their welfare and their happiness. My personal relations with most of them have been of a pleasant and cordial nature. I hope they will continue to be the same in the future.

Believe me, my dear Sir Wilfrid,

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) J. ISRAEL TARTE.

Immediately I answered in the following manner :-

Ottawa, October 21, 1902,

My dear Tarte,-After having seen you on Sunday last and having expressed to you my well settled opinion upon the consequences of your recent attitude, my first duty was to wait upon His Excellency the Governor General to inform him that I was obliged to demand the resignation of your portfolio.

After having seen His Excellency, I had to acquaint my colleagues of the interview which 1 had had with you.

In accepting your resignation, it is well to emphasize the points of difference between us.

During my absence in Europe, without any communication with me, and without any previous understanding with your colleagues, you began an active campaign in favour of an immediate revision of the tariff in the direction of high protection.

I regret having been obliged to observe to you that this attitude on your part constitutes a self-evident violation of your duty towards the government of which you were a member.

I repeat to you here what I told you on Sunday : I do not wish to discuss, at this moment, tile economic theory of which you have made yourself the champion. This question, however important it might be, is subordinate to one still more important.

If you had reached the conclusion that the inteiest of the country demanded without delay, an increase of the custom duties, the first thing for you to do as a member of the government, before addressing your views to the public, would have been to place them before your colleagues, with the object of obtaining that unanimous action of the cabinet which is the very foundation of responsible government.

If 3?ou had not been able to obtain from your colleagues their assent to the course which you recommended you would have been obliged then either to accept their own views or to sever your connection with them, and then for the first time would you have been free to place your views before the public.

Such was the very simple course which was binding upon you ; but to remain a member of the government, and, at the same time, to advocate a policy which had not yet been adopted by the government, was an impediment to the proper working of our constitutional system, and implies a disregard for that loyalty which all those who are members of the same administration owe to each other and have a right to expect from each other.

I thank you for the good wishes which you express for the improvement of my health, and I will make it my duty to convey to your old colleagues the wishes which you express for their welfare and their happiness.

Believe me.

Yours very sincerely,

Tarte,

Ottawa.

Upon this the portfolio of Public Works being vacant, and also the place in the cabinet occupied by my bon. friend, I asked the assent of my colleagues to my recommending His Excellency-advice which was accepted-to call to be Minister of Public Works my colleague who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, Mr. Sutherland, and to appoint to the portfolio of Marine Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

and Fisheries the hon. member for Maison-neuve, Mr. Prefontaine, who has since been returned for that constituency.

Hon. J. ISRAEL TARTE (Montreal, St. Mary's).

Mr. Speaker, it will be no surprise to the House if I beg leave to offer a few observations to supplement and perhaps to answer the statements which have just been' made and read by my right hon. friend the Prime Minister. My right hon. friend had been abroad for several months. On his return he reached the city of Montreal on the 18th of October. As it was my duty and my pleasure, I went to meet him and to welcome him. We arranged and agreed that both of us should be in Ottawa on the following day, that was Sunday. On that day he telephoned me that he would come to my house at five o'clock in the afternoon. The right hon. gentleman reproached me-informed me, rather-that some of my speeches made in his absence had annoyed several of my colleagues and were causing trouble to him. He expressed his regret that I should have made those speeches which had been pronounced on the fiscal policy. He thought I should not have taken the position I had taken. I informed him at the outset, that I had no desire to remain any longer a member of his administration-that, in fact, I had waited till lie was back in order to hand in my resignation. I then endeavoured to explain my position to him-not, as I told him, with a view to asking to be kept as a member of the cabinet, but to make my position clear to him. I reminded him then, in answer to the expression of his regret at the speeches which I had made, at what he called my new departure, that the speeches which I had made when he was abroad were not stronger, were not as strong, as several other speeches which I had made when he was here and in his presence. I told him that I thought a cabal had been organized against me, and that under the circumstances I was sure he would understand why I had no desire to remain any longer a member of the cabinet. I said to him : " My

resignation is in your hands ; you are a sick man ; I am in the best of health ; take my resignation at once, to-day ; do not worry ; appoint in my place anybody that you like ; I will do every thing that I can to save worry and trouble to you." These were the very words I used. The Prime Minister did not agree with that view. He told me that it was preferable to leave things in abeyance till I was back from Toronto, on Wednesday. As he stated a minute ago, on Monday morning, before I left for Toronto, I called at his office, and he told me again that it was preferable to leave matters in abeyance till I was back from Toronto. On my way up, the conclusion came irresistibly to my mind that it was better for all concerned that the situation should be relieved without any more

delay. I concluded then not to comply with his wishes, and I dictated to my secretary the letter of resignation which my right hon. friend has just read. Let me read that letter again, as it is of great importance to me that the statement I make to-day should be as complete as possible :- Toronto, 20th October, 1902.

The Right Honourable Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Prime Minister,

Ottawa, Ont.

My Dear Sir Wilfrid,-I feel it is my duty to place my resignation in your hands, and to ask you to be good enough to have it accepted by His Excellency the Governor General.

In the interview that I had with you, you expressed the opinion that. I should not have spoken on the tariff as I have done, that the government had not as yet come to any definite understanding on their fiscal policy for the future, etc.

I shall not discuss with you, at the present time, the question as to whether I was right or wrong in the course I have followed.

You are the leader of the government, and your opinion, as far as my attitude is involved, must prevail.

You told me that my utterances are causing you trouble. I have no right and no desire to be a source of embarrassment to you or to the party with which I have been connected since 1892.

My views on the tariff are well known to you. I have, on several occasions, stated them publicly in your presence, and discussed them often privately with you.

Entertaining the opinion that the interests of the Canadian people make it our duty to revise, without delay, the tariff of 1897, with the view of giving a more adequate protection to our industries, to our farming community, to our workingmen, I cannot possibly remain silent.

I prefer my freedom of action and of speech, under the circumstances, even to the great honour of being your colleague.

Before severing my official relations with you, allow me to express my sincerest hope that you will soon be restored to your health of former days.

You would greatly oblige me by conveying to my colleagues my best wishes for their welfare and their happiness. My personal relations with most of them, have been of a pleasant and cordial nature. I hope they will continue to be the same in the future.

Believe me, my dear Sir Wilfrid, Yours very sincerely,

(Sgd.) J. .ISRAEL TARTE.

This letter was mailed on tlie 20tk October, in Toronto. It reached my right hon. friend's office, I suppose, about ten o'clock in the morning. At one o'clock in the afternoon, my right hon. friend's answer was taken to my house. I was away. The right hon. gentleman knew that I was in Toronto. My right hon. friend wrote me in French, and I shall read the translation published in the ' Star.'

Ottawa, Oct. 21st 1902.

My Dear Tarte,-After having seen you on Sunday, and having expressed to you my wellfounded opinion of the consequences of your recent attitude, my first duty was ro call on His Excellency the Governor General, and to inform him that I was obliged to ask you for your portfolio. After having seen His Excellency, I informed my colleagues of the interview I had had with you. In accepting your resignation, it is well to precise the points of difference between us.

During my absence to Europe, without warning me and without any previous agreement with your colleagues, you commenced aD active campaign in favour of the revision of the tariff towards very high protection. I regret to have had to point out to you that this attitude on your part constitutes an open violation of your duty towards the government of which you are a member.

I now repeat what I told you on Sunday. I do not wish to discuss at this moment either the value or the opportunity of the theory of which you have constituted yourself the champion. The question, important as it may be, is overshadowed by considerations of much greater importance.

If you had reached the conclusion that the interests of the country demanded without delay the increase of the custom duties, the first thing for you to have done, as a member of the government, before addressing yourself to the public, was to have submitted your views to your colleagues for the purpose of securing a unanimous action of the cabinet, which is the very basis of a responsible government. If you have failed in securing the assent of your colleagues to the new policy which you recommended, you would have had to choose either to adopt their way of viewiDg the matter, or to part from them, and then for the first time it would have been open to you to address yourself to the public.

Such was the simple conduct which was imposed on you, but to remain a member of the government, and at the same time advocate a policy which has not as yet been adopted by the government constitutes an obstruction to the working of our constitutional system and implies a breach of that loyalty which all those who form part of the same administration owe each other and have the right of expecting one from the other.

I thank you for the wishes which you express for the improvement of my health, and I will make it my duty to transmit to your former colleagues the wishes which you express for their prosperity and their happiness.

Believe me.

Yours devotedly,

Tarte,

Ottawa'.

By the direction, I have no doubt, of nay right hon. friend, both his letter and mine were handed over to the press. They were given to the press on the 21st, the very same day that my right hon. friend's letter was written. On the 23rd October, I wrote over my own signature an article in ' La Patrie ' headed " a word to the country." Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to quote the following paragraphs, which refer to the letter of my right hon. friend :-

I see that some reproach Sir Wilfrid Laurier for the tone of the letter which he addressed to me.

The Prime Minister is fatigued-harassed- ill. The undeniable harshness of some of his words by no means changes my personal feelings towards him. I have grown old enough to take circumstances into consideration.

The Prime Minister had no right to tell me that I had failed in loyalty towards my colleagues, in using the language which I recently did on the fiscal question.

To this unjust reproach I have the right to oppose the numerous speeches which I made, in the same sense, during the last few years.

I did not organize a campaign in Ontario. I went into that province last year and this summer at the urgent invitation of the agricultural societies, of chambers of commerce, of ministerial members.

I am of the opinion that parliament is the proper place to discuss, at first, matters of this kind. I beg, then, to be allowed to emphasize as energetically as I can my objection to the Prime Minister's letter. I am speaking in all deference to him. I have a great deal of respect and consideration for my right hon. friend. I take direct issue with the statements contained in his letter as it has just been read to the House. Let me quote some of his words again :

During my absence to Europe, without warning me and without any previous agreement with your colleagues, you commenced an active campaign in favour of the revision of the tariff towards very high protection. I regret to have had to point out to you that this attitude on your part constitutes an open violation of your duty towards the government of which you are a member.

I did not commence, I did not carry on any new campaign. I went on repeating speeches that I had made before in the presence of the right hon. gentleman, of many members of the House, and of several of my colleagues on repeated occasions. There was a banquet given by the Manufacturers' Association in Montreal, in the month of November, 1901. I had the privilege of being one of the guests and one of the speakers on that occasion. My right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) attended that meeting. I was called upon to speak, and in the course of my speech I said :

Shall I be accused once more of being a 'Confounded Protectionist ' if I say openly, as I generally try 'o say things, that the main dovma of my political creed is ' Canada for the Canadians ?' Canada for the Canadians and for those who want to become Canadians. (Cheers).

Oh, oh.

Mr. MACLEAN.

Cheers from whom ?

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

From everybody in the hall. I went on :

I say let us be Canadians in our customs law's, let us stand by Canadian capital, let us stand by Canadian industry (hear, hear) ; let us stand by our Canadian manufacturers (prolonged cheering), and we shall, therefore, in every sense be standing rightly. We shall be standing rightly for the labouring classes, for the farming classes, for the manufacturing classes, for we ought to be one, and we are one.

Hon. Mr. TARTE.

I went on again :

Are the people to depend for all time upon the United States of America, our neighbour ? Our friends on the other side of the line have raised a wall against us, they show no disposition to lower it, and, if I am not mistaken, Sir, I would say that they take us by the throat every time that they can. Now, I want to know why our Canadian custom laws are not to be just as self-protecting as theirs ? I have not been able to see for the life of me, why our laws should not be as protective as those of the United States. We want to advance ; 1 do not care much about words, I care less about theories ; theories and words have given precedence to circumstances, and I say these are circumstances which we have to confront. I say why should the Americans invade our markets ? They would not invade our market if we can sell to the consumer just as cheap as tho American, and I want to know why we cannot. I am not discussing the tariff in detail, I am laying down principles. I say that the first principle for an individual, as for a nation, is to defend himself (hear, hear). In speaking as I do, I knotv I am speaking for the very large majority of the Canadian people. Now, do not believe, gentlemen, that I belong to a government where every one takes the same view. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has very rightly stated that questions of this kind are generally settled by compromise. I have been brought up a protectionist-in a protectionist school-and I have not renounced my faith (cheers), and I do not mean to renounce it. (reaewed cheering). The Prime Minister is a cabinet maker of the first rank and if I were ever to have a government I would try to have all the shades possible represented. You have no idea what a cabinet meeting is like-people fighting like blazes at times.

Let me say immediately that these last words have been, on several occasions, the subject of observations which have no foundation whatever. For, let me assure the House-and I am speaking in the hearing of my former colleagues-that we never had any such fighting as has been described in the press. I was speaking, of course, in a jocular way when I used those words.

The Prime Minister also made a speech on the same occasion. He made, forsooth, a fighting speech-a fiery speech. He said :

In connection with this, there is another feature which is now taking place. I remember, and you remember also, that since the abolition of the reciprocity treaty in 1866, we have sent delegation after delegation to Washington to obtain reciprocity. We are not sending any more delegations (loud and continued applause). But I rather expect, and I would not be surprised if the thing were to take place, even within a few years. I say, I rather expect .that there will be delegations coming from Washington to Ottawa for reciprocity (wild cheering), having learned the lesson from our friends to the South how to receive such a delegation, we shall receive them in the proper way (cheers), with every possible politeness (laughter).

After the speech from which I have quoted, I remained a member of the administration. After that I made several other speeches on the same line, advocating the revision of the fiscal policy of this country on strong Cana-1 dian, national lines. Time went on. Dele-

gation after delegation came to meet the government in Ottawa. I generally attended when meeting these delegations. On not one occasion was there a request that the tariff be lowered ; far from it ; on every occasion business men, manufacturing associations, farmers, asked for a revision of the tariff in the direction of higher protection. The government were pressed pretty hard. 1 know what was going on just as well as any of my former colleagues know. We were hard pressed. The London conference was on. The session of 1902 was called. The situation, as my right lion, friend has said, was discussed. Of course, none of us is free to say what took place in the council, but I remember very well what took place ; yes, and my former colleagues remember what took place too. The result of our deliberations was the statement made by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in his budget speech. Let me read it at some greater length than my right hon. friend has read it to the House.. The budget speech was delivered on March 17th, during which the Minister of Finance spoke as follows :

We do not propose to make any changes in the tariff this session. X do not for a moment claim that the tariff is perfect. I think that, on the whole, it has proved a very good tariff. Indeed, when we recall the circumstances under which our tariff revision took place, when we remember the very complicated and difficult problem with which we had to deal, we may well congratulate ourselves upon our success in devising a tariff so well adapted to the requirements of the country, a tariff under which Canada has prospered in a greater degree than in any previous period in her history. I have occasionally pointed out the desirability of a reasonable measure of tariff stability. Nothing would be more likely to unsettle business than a practice of introducing frequent tariff changes. Hence, we have resisted applications for many small changes, and we think it well to do so to-day. But I would not have it understood that this view can always be held. As time passes, conditions change in our own country, and it will be well for us to take note of this, so that we may adjust the tariff accordingly. Nor is that the only reason that might require some change. Conditions arise in other countries of which we are obliged to take account. We do not propose that we shall stand still and that this tariff shall remain unchanged; but we think the time is not opportune to make any change at present. There are several reasons which operate in our minds against entering upon a policy of tariff changes to-day. We have just completed the taking of a census, and while some of the results are available, others of much importance have yet to be prepared. Among these are the returns of the operations of our industries. In considering the tariff in relation to the industries of the country, it is desirable that we should have before us, with ample time for consideration, the industrial statistics of the recent census

That session came to a close. My right hon. friend and some of his colleagues went

abroad; I remained in Canada. After having settled the more pressing business of the Department of Public Works, I started on a tour of inspection, and also in search of information concerning the transportation question to which I had given as much time as I was able to do. Naturally I was called upon to answer addresses and make speeches, and I often expressed the opinion, which I had expressed in the House, that the transportation question and the fiscal policy of this country were intimately bound together. Perhaps on this occasion the storm has come from the west. Speaking at Port Arthur I had under my eyes an interview given by Mr. Greenway, former prime minister of Manitoba, in which he advocated a lower tariff. I said to the large audience before me that in my humble opinion Port Arthur and Fort William, and not Duluth, should be the centres of exchange on the great lakes for the trade between the west and the east. It was that way I was led to speak of the fiscal policy of the government. Mr. Speaker, my speeches, most of them at any rate, have been reported, and I invite criticism of my utterances during the absence of my right hon. friend. I state here that I never said in his absence what I did not say when he was here, what I would not have said had he been in this country. I have acted in perfect good faith. I advocated the policy that I had reason to believe, that I still believe, has the policy of this government before the Prime Minister and my colleagues went away. I did not advocate an increase of the tariff all along the line-and I again invite criticism of my utterances-I went on to say that this country should have, must have, a strong Canadian fiscal policy. That was the gist of my utterances, and I never went further. The right hon. gentleman reproaches me in his letter, and in his statement to-day, with having advocated an immediate revision of the tariff. Sir, the true facts of the case are these-I have already referred to them. The statement of the Minister of Finance last year was a formal promise to the country that during the present session of parliament, then the coming session of parliament, a revision of the tariff would take place. I made bold to say that I would be able to find a clear expression to that effect in some of the reported interviews that took place when my hon. friend the Minister of Finance and myself, with others, were present. It was a set-led matter. I take the responsibility of saying here that it was a settled matter that a revision of the tariff should take place this session.

I am prepared to take the responsibility of the mistakes I have made. If I have made mistakes I am prepared to pay the penalty of these mistakes, but, I am not ready to stand without protesting with all my energy and from the bottom of my heart under the

imputation that I have been disloyal to my colleagues. I cannot stand that. Whatever the position of the right hon. Prime Minister may be, and he has achieved a very high position in this country, his words cannot turn into accuracy statements that are not borne out by the facts. During my right hon. friend's absence I advocated for Canada a policy that would give us the Dest available means of transportation and a strong Canadian fiscal policy. I do not regret a word of what I have said. I know that I have acted loyally, I know that I have endeavoured to serve my country and that I have tried to serve my party to the best of my ability. I may have made mistakes, but, am I the only man after all who has talked tariff in the government ? I have advocated a strong Canadian policy on the floor of parliament and outside of it. Other members of the administration have talked fiscal policy. The Minister of the Interior (Hon. Clifford Sifton) also talked about the tariff, and I suppose that those who hold the view I hold are not the only ones to be excommunicated if any are to be excommunicated for discussing this question. The hon. Minister of the Interior, speaking on the 12th December, 1901, only a few days after I had talked in Montreal, spoke as follows : And this is not the only speech he made on the great desirability of having a lower tariff. I do not blame him. He is perfectly entitled to his opinions. I would like to have the same privilege. He was a minister as much as I was. He said

I desire before this representative convention to say a few words to put before you fairly and squarely the position of the government.

The different provinces have different interests and with these presented in parliament, it is impossible to weld them all into legislation.

If we are to have government, harmony and progress we must do in respect to fiscal legislation just what Sir Wilfrid said In regard to race and religion :-

' We must find a common ground upon which to stand.'

If you have followed the discussion in the press, you will know that there is a strong agitation for the purpose of placing a duty on lumber and increasing the duties on agricultural implements and woollen goods.

They say the reason is chat they have not sufficient protection. I say it is not. If they cannot live on a 23 per. cent tariff they had better shut up.

The government had never decided that if the woollen Industry or any other industry In the country could not live on a tariff of twenty-three per cent, they had better be shut np. We had never decided anything of the kind. The government had not pronounced more on the policy of my hon. friend-it had pronounced less, perhaps, because I verily believe it is the intention of the government to raise the duty on woollens. My hon. friend spoke in that way. Well, he has not been excommunicated.

The lumber interests are demanding a tariff of from 20 to 30 per cent.

The lumber representatives come down twice every session to see what influence they can bring to bear to have a duty placed on lumber. Sir Wilfrid sends them to me telling them that I represent the people who do not want a duty on lumber.

The government having arrived at this position on the tariff, the important thing for the people of the west Is to stand firmly at our backs and assist us in preventing any encroachment upon the position we have taken.

' Stability and no change ' is the policy of the government.

We had never decided that we should not have any change, far from It. The Minister of Finance had announced that there would he a revision of the tariff later on.

The Conservatives are in favour of a very decided advance in the duties of important com-;es all along the line.

British preference would be done away with if the Conservative party were returned to power.

Well, Sir, I made those speeches to which my hon. friend has alluded and on which we will have further opportunities to pronounce. On the 4tli of September my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior, the youngest member of the administration, perhaps, not the least influential, hut the youngest member of the administration, gave an interview which was circulated broadcast all over the land in which he took strong ground against any increase in the tariff. It was a signal for personal attacks directed against me in several newspapers of importance. The Manitoba ' Free Press,' which is the personal organ of my hon. friend, the ' Globe,' the Montreal ' Herald ' and other papers attacked me very severely. Knowing well the influences that are behind the scenes in the Liberal party, as I should know them, having been six years amongst them-

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

Who is behind the ' Globe ' ?

Mr. BENNETT.

Hypocrisy.