It was not my intention to take part in this debate, but after the extraordinary speech of the member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and his personal reference to myself, I think it my duty to say a few words in my own defence. I do not intend to follow that hon. gentleman on the ground of personalities in which he has indulged, I do not think that style of debate is calculated to raise or even to maintain the dignity of this House. This country has before it enough weighty problems to discuss without members of this House wasting our time in discussing personal matters. For that reason I cannot follow the hon. gentleman on the ground he has chosen, I will leave him to follow alone that line of debate. But I will say this to the hon. gentleman, that I am not afraid to compare my personal record with his own. So far as integrity and honour are concerned, I think my record will compare _ favourably with his : consequently if I do not choose to follow Mr. COWAN.

him in personal attacks, it is not because I do not feel quite able to defend myself on that ground. As to my public career as Minister of Marine and Fisheries, I am not afraid, either, to compare my record with the record of the hon. member for North Toronto. He was for a number of years Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and what did he do to reform that department? Let him point to one single action of his when Minister where he tried to reform the department. He did nothing, he let things drag on as they had been doing for years, He allowed the same abuses to continue that had been existing before he took hold of the department, and he never had the courage to effect a single reform in that department, as I have done. Sir, I have effected considerable reforms in that department, and if to-day I am attacked by some of the Tory newspapers and by the hon. member for North Toronto, it is because I have reformed the administration of that department. In the first place, we had a bad system of keeping accounts. That system existed when my hon. friend was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and what did he do to remove it? Nothing at all. I have reformed that, and to-day the abuses which existed under my hon. friend's administration have disappeared, and we have now a clear and straight administration of that department.

But why are these attacks levelled against me now? We have just passed through a general election contest, and my hon. friend knows the result. He knows what he and his friends essayed to do before the elections. He spent the whole session last year in attacking me, by all means and under all circumstances, by saying the most abusive things against me personally. When the elections came on he gathered together those abuses and reproduced them in pamphlet form and scattered them over Canada. Sir, what has been the result of that campaign of slander inaugurated by the hon. member for North Toronto? jHe and his party were hopelessly defeated, that was the result. There is not a county throughout Canada where my name was not mentioned by the Tory speakers, but it was all to no purpose, and this government has been triumphantly returned. Why, Sir, my opponents were not able to put a candidate against me in my own county, they were not able even to find twenty-five electors to sign a nomination paper for a candidate against me. True, they sent an organizer from Montreal into my county, instructing him by no means to allow me to be elected by acclamation. That gentleman went around the county to get signatures, not in favour of any man who was known in the county, but in favour of a man from Montreal who did not know ten electors in the county. This organizer succeeded in getting 25 names, but just as he was about

to deposit his nomination paper, two of the men who had signed it came up and said, 'We do not want our names on that nomination paper, we want Mr. Brodeur to be elected by acclamation. I was elected by acclamation, and that is my answer to the hon. gentleman and his friends. Not only Liberals of my county, but many Conservatives were in favour of my election by acclamation, as they told me themselves, in order to rebuke the hon. member for North Toronto for his abusive personalities. Let him continue that policy if he likes. Tonight he seems desirous of continuing it. Let him go on. I do not care, I will be reelected as long as he continues that policy.

I shall not be obliged, as my hon. friend was, to desert my own constituency and my own province, but I shall continue to be elected in my own constituency and my own province, because my electors have confidence in me.

The Department of Marine and Fisheries has been attacked. I would have thought that my hon. friend would at least have waited until he had had an opportunity of reading the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. I do not want to discuss that report now because I suppose that my hon. friends opposite have not had the opportunity of reading over the report, but probably we will have occasion later on to discuss it. But, I am glad to see that some of the attacks which have been made by my hon. friends opposite, and especially by the hon. member for North Toronto, have been proved to be absolutely false as far as they concern myself. I will give the House one instance. Hon. gentlemen who were then members of the House will remember the hon. member for North Toronto last session referring time and again to Merwin and Brooks and to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries who, he said, was still doing business with Merwin and Brooks. I was attacked and attacked by the hon. member for North Toronto on that ground. Let him read the report of Mr. Justice Cassels and he will find that the charge which was made against me in that connection is absolutely groundless; in fact, it is stated that the purchases which had been made from Merwin and Brooks were made contrary toi and in disobedience of the instructions that I had given by an officer of the department appointed by my hon. friend for North Toronto. If there is anybody who is at fault it is not myself, but it is the hon. member for North Toronto who has placed^ in the service men who will not fulfil the instructions of their ministers, men who have been disobeying the instructions of their ministers. I

My aim upon going into the department was to reform that department and put it on a proper basis. Abuses of the worst kind have crept in, I admit, abuses which had existed since confederation, which had 3

existed under the Tory governments and which had existed under the Liberal government. Take the question of purchases for example. You have heard a great deal lately with regard to purchases and how scandalous it was that we had a patronage list or that we were purchasing from some particular personal. Let us read some extracts from' a document which was placed before the House last year, because I do not want to refer to the report of Mr. Justice Cassels. We will discuss that later on. and we will draw from it the arguments which I venture to say will vindicate absolutely what I have done. But, let us quote from a report which was laid before the House last year. Take for example a letter of the 28th March, 1894, addressed by Mr. Art. J. Turcotte, member for Montmorency, to Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, who was then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, and which is as follows:

Hon. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, K.C.M.G., Minister of Marine and Fisheries,

Ottawa.

Dear Sir,-For the supplies of groceries at the Department of Marine of Quebec, I would much recommend you Napoleon Moffet. Hoping that you will do me that favour.

Yours truly,

(Sgd.) ART. J. TURCOTTE.

Then Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper replies as follows:

Dear Mr. Turcotte,-Your letter of the 28th, recommending that groceries be purchased from Mr. Napoleon Moffet, was received by me.

Mr. Moffet has been asked, through the agent at Quebec, for his prices.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) C. H. TUPPER.

Here is a letter dated the 7th June, 1894, addressed to Mr. Gregory:

In reply to your letter of May 2, 1894, informing me that you had no correspondence with the department, regarding the purchase of groceries from Mr. O. A. Larose, I have to request you to inform me whether Mr. O. A. Larose was recommended by any one. Inform -me al9o whether you purchased groceries from any other grocer than Mr. Larose.

The deputy minister writes that to Mr. Gregory.

It appears from the accounts, that nearly oil! the groceries purchased for steamers' use were obtained from Mr. Larose. I have to request you to report whether -this is the case.

No competition was required in any way, shape or form. Here is an extract from a memo.:

January 14, 1905.

Re purchasing of supplies, for lighthouses. Small supplies.

With regard to what are called small supplies, such as towelling, ticking, gray cotton, &o., the agents are allowed to purchase these without tender -at the lowest possible prices for good articles from merchants who have

been recommended by the M. P.'s of the several cities.

Recommending by the M.P.'s, members of the several cities ! That is very clear. Here is another:

. April 5, 1895.

Sir,-Mr. Turcotte, M.P., has written to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries asking that crockery and smallwares be obtained from Mr. Omer Lecomte, when required, the same as supplied by his predecessor Mr. Bruneau.

I have to request you to report on the matter foT the information of the department.

I am, sir, your obedient servant, (Sgd.) JOHN HARDIE, Acting Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries.

J. U. Gregory, Esq.,

Agent Department of Marine and Fisheries, Quebec

Here is another letter:

Quebec, April 9, 1895.

Sir,-I am in receipt of your letter of the 5th instant (No. 10729), requesting me to report upon the application of Mr. Turcotte, M.P., for crockery and smallwares to he obtained from Mr. O. Lecomte, successor to Mr. Bruneau.

Mr. Louis Bruneau was recommended for this patronage by the late Hon. Jno. Hearn, Sir A. P. Caron and others; it amounted to very little. He has gone entirely out of the business and is succeeded by Mr. Omer Lecomte, who appears to have as many good friends as Mr. Bruneau; and his getting the supplying of the few articles which may he wanted in his line will not injure Mr. Bruneau nor any one else that I know of. Please inform me if approved of.

I have the honour to be, Sir,

Your obedient servant,

(Sgd.) JOHN U. GREGORY,

Agent Department of Marine and Fisheries. The Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries,

Ottawa.

And it was approved of. These are some of the things which happened in Quebec. Now, take St. John, N.B. I see that during the elections a gentleman in that province went out of his way to work against the Liberal party. This gentleman seemed to be very much scandalized in regard to patronage. What do I find ? -a letter from the Hon. John Douglas Hazen, Premier of New Brunswick, written to Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, as follows:

Dear Sir,-Last year, acting on my recommendation, you decided that the dry goods, required to be obtained at St. John for your department, he purchased from James Hamilton.

No objection there.

I believe the price was thoroughly satisfactory, and I will be obliged if you will give similar instructions to your agent at St. John for this year's supplies. Mr. Hamilton is one of our very best political workers, and Mr. BRODEUR.

his party services entitle him to anything that can fairly be given to him.

Your faithfully,

(Sgd.) J. DOUGLAS HAZEN.

Here is the Premier of New Brunswick who is not asking even that a purchase list be made, that prices be obtained from some friends of the government, but that purchases be made direct from Mr. James Hamilton.

We find on May 8, 1894, another letter from Mr. Hazen reading as follows:

My deaT Sir Charles,-I beg once more to call your attention to my recommendation of some time ago that the dry goods required in your department in St. John be purchased from James Hamilton. I judge from your reply at the time this recommendation would be acted upon and I will feel very much obliged if you will now instruct Mr. Harding to purchase from Hamilton if his prices are satisfactory.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) J. DOUGLAS HAZEN.

Mr. URIAH WILSON.

A little different.

Mr. BRODEUR.

A little different, just to purchase from one man. My hon. friend says it is another thing, but what competition is there?

We have the same thing from Halifax, and there I declare it to be one of the most scandalous matters which has been brought before this parliament. There tenders had been asked for, but before those tenders were passed upon by the Governor in Council they were submitted to outsiders to see whether the tenders would please them or not. I shall read the letter to my hon. friend.

Ottawa, April 19, 1892. The Hen. C. H. Tupper,

Minister of Marine and Fisheries,

Ottawa.

My dear Tupper,-Referring to our conversation yesterday morning respecting tenders for the supplies for the steamers of your department at Halifax, I have to ask that before the contracts are awarded you will kindly allow me an opportunity to call at your office and learn who are likely to receive them.

Your faithfully,

(Sgd.) JOHN F. STAIRS.

Before these tenders were submitted to council, when they should be a matter of secrecy between the members of the government, an outsider comes in and asks to see the tenders. What is the answer? It should have been that the tenders were private and that no one had the right to see them, but that is not what we see under Conservative administration. I have here Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper's letter.

In reply to yours of the 19th instant, requesting an opportunity ito call at my department, and ascertain who is likely to receive the contract for supplying the steamers of the department at Halifax, I may eay that

any time after to-morrow you may call, and information will "be given respecting the tenders.

Yours very truly,

(Sgd.) CHARLES HIBBERT TTJPPER. John E. Stairs, Esq., M.P., -

The House of Commons.

Could there be any more scandalous conduct than that of the late ministers in permitting outsiders to inspect the tenders before they were accepted by the Governor in Council? I brand it as most disgraceful conduct. That is one of the evils, with which we had to cope. When I entered the department what did I do?

Oh, oh, hear, hear.

Mr. BRODEUR.

I changed entirely the system which had been in existence before. One man was no longer permitted the exclusive right to sell dry goods to the department, as had been done at St. John; we asked prices from a large number of people and lately I have gone further, I have abolished entirely the patronage list and now we are purchasing by calling for public tenders, open to everybody. The other day we had occasion to ask for tenders in Halifax, and I understand that a contract has been given to a person who is not friendly to the government. But I do not care; I want,to reform the system that has been in existence since 1867, I do not wish to have any more of that patronage system. The Liberal party, unlike the Conservative party, believe in doing without that patronage system. The system, does not work to the interest of the Liberal party, for we are not like the Conservative party ; the Conservative party wants to make millionaires or to give favour ; we want to distribute the wealth and to give to every person the advantage of an opportunity of tendering \and of carrying out contracts and we wish in making purchases to obtain substantial goods at reasonable prices. These reforms I understand have not been very well received by my hon. friends opposite; they would like to see continued the same system that existed before. I am not in favour of that policy; I have decided that in my department things shall be done in an upright and honourable way. I do not wish to follow the course of my hon. friends opposite; I want to do better than they have done; I want to institute reforms and those reforms are now being carried out in the best way possible. How are these reforms being carried out? I have told you that we have made investigations, we ordered the civil service investigation, and following that the investigation by Mr. Justice Cassels. That shows that we are not afraid of making investigations.

Oh, oh.

Mr. BRODEUR.

I am glad to see the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) laughing at that. How did the former government proceed? How did he proceed himself? In 1891 and 1892, when officers were charged with being derelict in their duty, what did he do? Of course he was not Minister of Marine, but he was minister of another department in which some officers were also charged. Did he appoint a judge to investigate the conduct of those officers and of the ministers who might be reproached as to their conduct? No, my hen friend was too cautious for that, he did not do what I did, he simply appointed himself a commission in order to investigate the conduct of those officers.

Mr. FOSTER.

It would be well done.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Hear, hear.

Mr. BRODEUR.

My hon. friend (Mr. Foster) who could be charged with being responsible for the conduct of these officers who were under his control, instead of appointing an independent judge to make the investigation said: I shall appoint myself- that will be better and less dangerous. He appointed himself and afterwards dismissed some of those officers and retained others in the public service. The course we have followed is much more courageous; we were not afraid to have an outsider go into the accounts of the Department of Marine, we were not afraid of investigation and we appointed a judge to conduct the investigation and lawyers to assist him. We have had examined everything connected with the administration of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and all of the evidence taken during the investigation can be found in the reports which have been laid before parliament. Did my hon. friend bring down to parliament the evidence which he took when he appointed himself a commissioner? No, he kept it for himself, he kept everything for himself, and now because a minister tries to do the right thing he is branded as a stupid and foolish man. I followed the course which I took because I was not afraid; my hon. friend perhaps would not have followed the same course, it might have been stupid on. his part. I made it my duty to have an investigation by an independent judge and the result is as satisfactory as can be expected in the circumstances. For my part I am satisfied with the result of the investigation. I come out clear from that investigation and in spite of the insinuations of my hon. friend, in spite of his calling me stupid, I say that I stand justified before the country, having done my duty fearlessly, having done my duty to my friends, my duty to my party and my duty to the country which I have the honour to serve.

Mr. GEO. H. BARNARD (Victoria, B.C.).

Mr. Speaker, I take it that if the result of the recent elections in British Columbia re-

quires any justification, it has received it at the hands of the right hon. the Prime Minister to-day, for I think I am right in saying that the right hon. gentleman has paid more attention to the needs and wants of that province this afternoon than he has ever done since he has had the honour of leading the government. I do not propose to-night to discuss the questions on which the elections in the province of British Columbia were decided. The British Columbia members will, I think, if opportunity is afforded to them, and if it is not they will try to create it, discuss fairly, fully and freely those questions before thi8 House, and I think the right hon. gentleman will find that the members from the province of British Columbia will be prepared to take up the gauntlet which he has thrown down to-day.

The right hon. gentleman did me the honour to refer with some particularity to the election in Victoria and to a certain telegram which had been sent by the hon. leader of the opposition to the 'Colonist ' newspaper in that city; and, as I hope to stand in the estimation of the members of this House, not only on this side, hut on the other side as well, as a man of honour and integrity, I deem it proper to make a statement with regard to that telegram. As a matter of fact, the telegram was handed to me when I was speaking on a platform at a public meeting in the city of Victoria on the evening of Saturday, the 24th of October, by an emissary of the 'Colonist' newspaper, a man on the reportorial staff of that paper. I read the telegram as it was handed to me, and it appeared the next morning in the 'Colonist' newspaper in the form in which it was handed to me. That is all that I knew about that telegram at that time. I heard afterwards that there was some alteration made in the telegram, but I want to say that so far as my inquiries gave me any information, it was not made either with any knowledge of mine or with the consent or connivance of any of the gentlemen who did me the honour of assisting me in any way in my election in Victoria.

The right hon. gentleman had a good deal to say this afternoon about the reasons for the result of the elections in British Columbia. I think I can fairly tell the right hon. gentleman that he did not lose those British Columbia elections on the 26th of October, 1908, but he lost them when he made a certain speech in the Bussell Theatre in the city of Ottawa on the 3rd of December, 1907. The right hon. gentleman is reported in a paper which I believe is a Liberal paper, the 'Ottawa Free Press', as having on that occasion used the following words:

Japan is an ally of ours, declared Sir Wilfrid, and if there was a war in the Pacific in which Great Britain might be engaged we would have the Japanese fleet by the side of

Mr. BARNABD.

the British fleet. We would not apply the law of exclusion to the Japanese, but we recognize that there i9 a strong prejudice in the province of British Columbia amongst the white population against all kind's of Oriental population. I say prejudice, and I speak advisedly. I do not want 'to speak offensively. I know my words will be reported in British Columbia, but I speak here the same language I would speak there if it were my privilege to be there. Perhaps my words will be unwelcome there, but I tell them: You may have your views upon the question, and you are hostile to the immigration of the Oriental race. I do not oare for your sentiments, and I believe you are making a mistake.

With regard to the last sentence, I understand that the right hon. gentleman made a correction, stating that it should have read: 'I do not share your sentiments.' That sentence, I may tell the right hon. gentleman, was quoted time and again in the province of British Columbia and was never contradicted, and I assume it to be a correct report. That was one of the inducing causes which made a majority of the electors of British Columbia supporters of the Conservative party. The right hon. gentleman appeared to be especially surprised at the result in the city of Victoria, and seemed to consider it necessary to impute fraud to the party to which I belong in the conduct of the election; but I think he could have found other reasons, if he had gone a little deeper, why the electors of Victoria did not care to return the gentleman who was contesting the seat in his interest. That gentleman had contested the seat four times previously, and had been defeated three times out of the four, and it was only when he came to British Columbia and dazzled the eyes of the electors with a Windsor uniform as a minister of the Crown, and that at a by-election, that he managed to get a seat at all. Now, the right hon. gentleman might, in fairness to a new member of this House at least, have taken the House into his confidence in reading that telegram this afternoon, and might have told Hon. members that it was not addressed to myself, but to the 'Colonist' newspaper and was published in that newspaper. I may say, in conclusion, that I hope my own reputation in my own community is as free as is his in his community from imputations of fraud.

Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).

Mr. Speaker, I have no intention at this late hour of the night of taking up the time of the House on the motion for the adoption of the address; but the remarks of the right hon. the Prime Minister have made it impossible for any British Columbian member to remain silent. Two questions of supreme importance to the province from which I come entered very largely into the recent campaign, namely, Japanese immigration and better terms. The Prime Min-

ister has referred to the fact that in the province of British Columbia the elections were fought largely on a question of principle, and, if I understand him aright, he expressed his gratification at that fact, a gratification in which we can all share. I do not know whether I can infer from his remarks that in the other provinces the elections were not conducted on questions of principle. If so, I assume that the right hon. gentleman referred to the Liberal conduct of the campaign as well as the Conservative. At one time the right hon. the Prime Minister stated that he would be guided on the great question of Oriental immigration by the sentiments of the west; but, if I remember aright, he said he would be guided by the views of the Liberals of the west. I think that is a rather narrow view He should have said that he would be guided by the views of the people of British Columbia, not the Liberals only.

In regard to the hon. gentlemen who moved and seconded the address, I can join with my leader in complimenting those hon. gentlemen. I admit that I was not able to follow the seconder of the motion, although I recognized his grace and eloquence as a speaker. The mover of the address spoke at great length, and in the course of his speech stated that he was an agriculturist, but having been myself an agriculturist for about a quarter of a century, I may be pardoned for saying that his remarks did not smack very much of the soil.

There are four matters which were prominent in the elections that took place recently. They are essential matters of principle, and 1 propose to touch on them very briefly. In saying that they are essentially questions of principle, I am citing the words of the right hon. the First Minister himself ; and I may add that this description of them has been proved accurate, especially in my own case and in my own constituency, where I had the difficult task of contesting a deferred election with the government well in power. And I think 1 am warranted in saying that the result of that election -was a very clear illustration of the triumph of principle over expediency. The four questions which were chiefly debated in the province of British Columbia-and I refer especially to my own campaign, representing as I do, by far the largest constituency in the whole Dominion-were the so-called Election Act, Bill No. 115, known out west as the Aylesworth Bill ; the question of better terms ; the question of the Oriental or Japanese immigration ; and the administration of public affairs, especially in connection with the civil service.

As regards the Election Bill, which was prominently discussed in our campaign, and which to some extent defeated our opponent because of the attitude he took on

that measure last session-with regard to that Bill I shall not say anything because the members of this House who sat here during months while that measure was under discussion, must have had a surfeit of it. I shall only say that proof has since been given in a very marked way that the election laws of British Columbia are absolutely fair to both Liberals and Conservatives. The attenpt to abolish our provincial franchise excited very strong feeling in our province ; and I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing to my honoured leader and the rest of the Conservative party my appreciation of the gallant fight they put up to retain to the province of British Columbia its own franchise. In connection with this Election Bill, we have had some debate on the question of the deferred elections in Yale and Cariboo and Comox-Atlin and Kootenay. Let me say most emphatically, speaking from personal knowledge of the large constituency of Cariboo, that there was absolutely no justification for the postponement of that election, and that it was generally known, throughout the length and breadth of my constituency, to have been postponed for the sole purpose of getting a seat in this House for a man who had not the slightest chance of obtaining it without the advantage of insidious appeals to public patronage.

The question of better terms has been dealt with to some extent by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) and I shall merely touch on it briefly. In 1904 the question of better terms to British Columbia was the subject matter, to a large extent, of the campaign at that time. We were favoured with various expositions of that subject, and one of the most extraordinary was given by a gentleman who,

I believe, is about to speed westward in the hope of representing a constituency which a member of this House has gratefully relinquished. I refer to the Minister of inland Revenue (Mr. Templeman). On one occasion, when speaking on the question of better terms, Mr. Templeman expressed the view that one large sample of better terms would be given British Columbia when a Liberal administration was restored to power. Well, I fear the better terms will come very late in the day if it is to come in that shape.

Referring to the Prime Minister of British Columbia, (Mr. McBride), the right hon. the First Minister said he was a very astute man. Well, he is not only astute but something very much stronger and bigger. On the question of better terms, he took a broad, sane view ; and in handling the matter as he did he impressed his view, not only on the Conservatives, but on the majority of the Liberals of British Columbia. When dealing as I hope to do, at length with this question later on, I propose ' to endeavour to impress on thi3 .

House that, in bringing up this question, we are not impelled by any spirit of antagonism to the other provinces, but simply because we believe that there can be no possible sympathetic co-operation among the different provinces until equal justice is meeted out to all. All we intend ever asking this House and pressing on the government is simply that the contention submitted by my hon. friend from Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) namely, that an impartial tribunal should decide whether we have a case or not. should be acted upon.

Leaving that matter, I propose to say a few words on the Oriental question. Some time ago the right hon. First Minister differentiated between the various races which confront each other on the Pacific coast. He drew broad lines of distinction between the Japanese, the Chinese and the Hindoos. To-night, however, he includes them in the one common expression ; but there is this distinction to be noticed, and it is one which I have always endeavoured to appreciate. I am no hide bound partisan, I am quite ready to acknowledge that we are all working for the good of Canada in our various ways, although we cannot all see alike, and I do not take the ground that nothing hon. gentlemen on the opposite side can do can possibly be otherwise than wrong. We must admit that there must be many measures entitled to approval, no matter from what side they may come. As regards the Hindoo phase of this question, I believe that the action of the government, was the only right and practical one, namely, to send their accredited representative to the imperial authorities in order to arrive at a solution of that question, which was different from the others in this important respect that it affected British subjects. That is a difference which is fundamental, and I trust on some future occasion to try and convince the House, that the only possible solution of this question will be found in convincing thoughtful and earnest men on both sides that the stand we take is not a narrow or provincial one but one eminently just and in the national interest. I know the opinion exists that out in the west we are a little hot tempered and not so judicial as we should be in our discussions on this matter, and we shall have to convince hon. gentlemen by logical appeal to their reason, that the views of the west are sound. You must not think, Mr. Speaker, that because we come from British Columbia and have to face conditions there which are rather acute, we are necessarily local or provincial in our views. We claim-and I think rightly -that we are not only British Columbian to the bottom of our hearts but also Canadians in the broadest sense of the word and Imperialists in the truest significance. May I add that in my own personal experience, speaking to men in the old land- and following the more recent articles in the Mr. BURRELL.

leading papers and reviews of Great Britain, the thoughtful opinions of the mother country have become fundamentally changed on the question of the influx of the Oriental race.

The day is coming, even if it has not come already, when, as it is put by one of their prominent men, it is recognized more and more every day to be the duty of the home government and the imperial authorities, no matter what conditions they have to face in other parts of the world, to stand by even the most distant and smallest portions of the British empire to build up a nation that should be Anglo-Saxon in race and tradition. I would like to add a word, because the Prime Minister seemed to imply that in one riding at least -I do not know whether he intended to include them all-the telegram in reference to the problem of exclusion by the leader of the opposition was one of the reasons why British Columbia had gone Conservative, as it were coming in under a false promise or a piece of hypocrisy. Let me assure him in the most emphatic way that, speaking for myself, not once did I say -though I expressed my sympathy with the exclusion movement as I do now-that the leader of the opposition had pledged himself to that policy, although it may be my view that not only he but other members of the House will come to that opinion. I treated the case on its merits, and the contest resulted, as I knew it would, against the former member for Yale-Cariboo, because he, in common with other members who represented-or rather misrepresented-British Columbian constituencies had ratified that treaty without a word of protest in regard to it. I can quite understand that some hon. members opposed will retort-in fact I knew this retort was made-that our leader and other members of the Conservative party also supported the ratification, of that treaty, and did not lift up their voices in protest against it. I recognize that. It is perfectly true, and it may possibly be that there are two reasons for it. I am not imputing bad motives or casting slurs when I say that it is certain that the Conservative party were misled by hsn. gentlemen opposed as to assurances from Japan with regard to this matter, and also by the exaggerated ideas of the importance of the trade with J apan, which, I believe, is not going to be as large as some people seem to think. Then, again, with regard to the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and Conservative members generally, I can quite understand that no man who has lived altogether -in the east and has not come into daily contact with the conditions that face the people of the west, can possibly grasp the true significance of this oriental question to the people of the Pacific coast. I am sorry to add also that hon. gentleman opposite, and eastern members, generally do not avail themselves of their

privileges, as they ought to do, to gain a more intimate acquaintance at first hand with the great western country which, after all, is going to be the backbone of Canada. There is this to be said, however, that the leader of the opposition and the Conservative party, when they did begin to realize what the sentiment and feeling in British Columbia was on this great question, adjusted their position to meet the sentiment of British Columbia, which, after all, gentlemen on the opposite side did not do. It is all very well to say that this was done for party purposes, but we have no right to judge people in that way. We have a right to assume, and we may assume, that the leader of the opposition felt from the bottom of his heart that he ought to do as he has done, that he recognized the importance of this question, and, when he understood the sentiment of the people of the west, he adjusted his position and took a different stand, possibly, from that which he took a year or two ago. We recognize that this question has got to be divested of all bitterness, that it has got to be put on the soundest kind of basis. I hope that some time it will be the privilege of British Columbia members on this side to put up an argument on this question, and I hope that it will be an argument of sufficient strength and fairness to practically revolutionize the sentiments with regard to the matter of the members from the east, who, perhaps, have not grasped the importance of the question.

Now, I desire, in closing, to deal for a moment with another question-the character of the administration of public affairs in this country, more especially in relation to the Civil Service. This is a live matter, for it is referred to in the speech from the Throne, and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Hon. Mr. Brodeur) had occasion to deal with it in a somewhat lengthy way. One of that hon. gentleman's remarks was quite pathetic, it seems to me. He intimated that he would not deal _ with _ the campaign of the opposition on this subject, because these questions formed a very undignified theme. I think that is the way he put it. Well, not referring to the personal aspect of the matter, when charges are brought against individuals or against a government, that corruption and wrongdoing exist, it is certainly extremely undignified for some people to have it found out. But these people have to be dealt with. And here again, I may refer to the remarks of the Prime Minister on the matter of principle, I say that the character of the administration of our public affairs must essentially be a matter of great significance and vital importance to every man who values the welfare of Canada-it must be so for any man who is trying to make Canada a better nation that it is. Charges were made, and I find that the Prime Minister, in his campaign, underwent a series of changes in

his attitude toward these charges as the discussion proceeded. I think I quote him accurately when I say that his first statement was that these matters were of trifling magnitude, and he would dismiss them. His second position was that our charges would be probed to the bottom and the guilty parties punished. And, his third position was that he refused to discuss the matter at all. Well, in regard to his first suggestion, I can only say that any matter! that affects the character of the administration of public affairs in Canada cannot be a matter of trifling moment. As to his second suggestion, that these things would be probed to the bottom and the guilty parties punished, I feel that our experience in the west, so far as we have followed public affairs-and we try to follow them intelligently - is that, the present regime is not very successful in such probing; they have not gone very far. Judging from what they found at the top, if they were to go to the bottom, there would be a bad mess. We felt some distrust as to their probing of these matters. And then, as I say, the Prime Minister de-dared that he would not discuss this subject. But, unfortunately for the Liberal cause, so far as British Columbia is concerned, the people went on discussing it. They thought these were important matters, matters the discussion of which was necessary. I know that in my own campaign I did discuss them. I see one or two gentlemen on the other side who followed me very closely in the campaign amongst whom I may mention the Hon. Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver.).

Now the gentleman who did follow me, whether closely or at a distance, will admit that I was not guilty of making any unfair attacks in regard to the administration of public affairs in the country. My own course was simply this. I left on one side the Liberal and Conservative papers, and I went to the source and took up the report of the Civil Service Commission appointed by the right hon. gentleman's government. I simply showed what this report was, and what it said, and the result was that those people who could not be influenced by the party press were perfectly willing to be influenced by an independent authority such as that commission. I would even go further and say that I can hardly understand how it is that in eastern Canada that report did not have a greater effect than it appears to have had. Of course I can understand that all moral reform is of slow growth. I am glad to have the hon. gentleman's assurance that he is reforming his own department, and although it may take some time, I trust that the reform will ultimately take place. I may add that I believe that if a similar report had been published in Great Britain on any department of the public service there, it would have driven any

government from office in twenty-four hours.

Now, Mr. Speaker, aliow me to refer to one other matter which concerns my own constituency, as I think it has some bearing on the question of principle to which the prime minister has referred. I refer to the question of patronage. I think that political patronage has been one of the great curses of this country, and has done more than anything else to retard the growth of a healthy public sentiment. Some remarks have been made here tonight in connection with the bribery of constituencies. I will not debate that question at any length now, but I may remark that it played a considerable part in my constituency at the last election. It is the opinion of the people in the west that the great natural resources of Canada are being too largely used and disposed of for party and political advantage. The Prime Minister, in his remarks, referred to my late opponent, Mr. Duncan Ross. Well, Mr. Duncan Ross is not regarded in British Columbia as a very high authority on political matters, particularly since November 12. But as some hon. gentlemen opposite seem to regard him as an authority, I will quote a few lines from a speech which he made subsequently to his defeat.

Keeping a seat warm in parliament is a mere incident compared with the. labour and thought required in acting as an agent of the people of Yale-Cariboo, transacting their business with the government in power. Any advice received from the member elected from this district will be immediately treated as hostile advice coming from a man elected to do his utmost to defeat that government, and any advice that will be acceptable to that government must necessarily come from one who fought the battles of the government in this district, and who went down fighting in defence of the policies and the records of the government.

Well, I do not think there is any doubt that the former representative of Yale-Cariboo did go down to defeat, considering the size of the majority against him. Now I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman and the members of his government whether that is the principle which is going to guide them in treating all advice tendered them by opposition members, viz., -as hostile advice to be neglected by the government. I would be sorry to believe, and I will not believe until I am convinced to the contrary, that any minister of this government will take so narrow a view of his responsibilities. For my own part I consider myself as representative, not only of the Conservatives of Yale-Cariboo, but of the Liberals as well. I understand that the duty of a member of parliament is to represent his own constituencv, and a man would be recreant to his duty if he did not, regardless of party ties and affiliations, keep steadily in view the interest of all his Mr. BURRELL.

constituents, whether Liberal or Conservative.

Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General. I do not intend to detain the Heuse at any length. I merely wish to refer to some remarks made by my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) in his very interesting, and I may say very bitter speech. The hon. gentleman said that when during the last campaign, I was in the city of Berlin, I dangled before the eyes of the electors some promises which I think the hon. gentleman . termed petty bribes. Sir, I resent the statement made by that hon. gentleman, and I do not think that my hon. friend from York will corroborate that statement after the explanations I propose to give.

Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (S. York).

Your friend from York made no remark.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Mr. Speaker, what are the facts? During the summer of 1907 I was invited as Minister of Labour to a dinner given by the citizens of Berlin, irrespective of politics, to Mr. Mackenzie King. It was indeed a pretty sight to see the Conservatives of Berlin uniting with the Liberals to testify to the high character and great ability of the young Deputy Minister of Labour. I was present as his chief on that occasion. On that visit I was requested by the mayor of Berlin, whose politics 1 do not know, and by many of the citizens, to complete a work which had been undertaken by a former Conservative government twenty years ago. There was standing in the centre of that very interesting and beautiful city of Berlin, what I would call an eyesore. Under the government of Sir John Macdonald they had erected there a splendid posfr office with a tower, but that tower, as I noticed, was clockless and the citizens of Berlin begged of me to represent their views to the Minister of Public Works at Ottawa so as to secure the completion of that tower by) the addition of a clock. I promised the gentlemen who approached me, Conservatives and Liberals alike, that certainly I would do my best to make their representations to the minister and that I hoped that within a very short time the tower would have its clock. I was asked at the same time to give to the city of Berlin, a very enterprising city of the province of Ontario, the system of free letter delivery within its limits. I said that if the city of Berlin had reached the population fixed by thel regulations of the Post Office Department, that is to say, 12,000, and if the revenue of the city justified it, that is to say $20,000 a year, it would not be a pleasure but it would be a duty for me as Postmaster General to give to the city of Berlin free letter delivery. I came back to Ottawa. I made representations to the then Minister of Public Works. I

think that my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley), who is now the incumbent of the office, had not yet been sworn in, but at a later period, after he had been sworn in as a cabinet minister and after he had taken charge of the Public Works Department, I approached him with a delegation sent from Berlin to implement the promise I had made in the summer of 1907. My hon. friend yielded to the request of the citizens of Berlin, irrespective of politics, and forthwith the clock was sent to Berlin and the eyesore disappeared. As to the free mail delivery, it was granted at once; in fact, a few days after my visit in June, 1907, it was granted to the citizens of Berlin. When I appeared before the electors a year afterwards, accompanied by a gentleman who was no more the deputy minister of the Department of Labour, I jocularly remarked, up

Now, I shall not dwell at any length on the question of graft and corruption. That question has been decided by the electors of the Dominion. I for one as a public man do not believe that the hon. gentleman who leads the opposition is a corrupt statesman. I believe he is an honest man and I believe that every man in this country thinks that the hon. leader of the government is also an honest man and one who would not stand for graft or corruption. There was no issue in the last general election but the issue of graft and of corruption, which was not one worthy of the Canadian people. The Canadian people pronounced themselves in favour of the government because they believe that our policy had been wise, honest and truly Canadian.

I have listened with much pleasure and with very great interest indeed to the speeches delivered by the hon. gentlemen

who now represent the fair province of British Columbia. I have listened to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell) who has just snoken, and I must commend the tone of his speech. I will speak only of two features which were specially put forward during the last political campaign in British Columbia. He says that there were four features. I will speak only of two because I happen to know a little more about these. He spoke of the question of better terms and of oriental immigration. As regard better terms, let me say to the hon. gentleman that I had the great honour to sit on the special committee of the Privy Council which listened to the demands made by the united provinces of the Dominion three years ago in the Senate chamber. I listened with great interest to the requests that were made, because, as hon. gentlemen know, as the leader of the opposition fully knows, we in the province of Quebec, since 1887, have taken a very deep interest in the question. In fact, the province of Quebec, under the leadership of the Hon. Mr. Flynn, premier of that province, under the leadership later of the Hon. Mr. Mousseau, and still later under the leadership of the Hon. Mr. Mercier, had been very insistent at Ottawa upon the settlement of the question of the readjustment of the provincial subsidies. Fortunately for the province of Quebec we had won to our cause the great province of Ontario under the leadership of Sir Oliver Mowat, later on under that of Mr. Ross and later on under that of Hon. Mr. Whitney. The question came up before that committee of the Privy Council. It was there stated by the Finance Minister of Canada, by the Prime Minister, by the Minister of Justice-not by myself-I was the junior member of the committee-I simply listened and 1 learned a great deal-but there and then ft was stated and it was stipulated that the agreement to settle the readjustment of the provincial subsidies would be a final-final one. Let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker, that no man fought with more zeal, that no man put up such a sturdy fight for what he considered to be in the best interests of his province, than Mr. McBride, but Mr. McBride was alone in his minority. He was defeated not only by a majority vote, but he was defeated by the unanimous vote at that convention of premiers. The Hon. Mr. Whitney was against Mr. McBride, the Hon. Mr. Roblin was against Mr. McBride, the Hon. Mr. Murray, the Hon. Mr. Pugsley, now the Minister of Public Works, but who then represented the province of New Brunswick, the premier of Prince Edward Island, and the premiers of the two new provinces of the far west were against Mr. McBride. He however obtained some concession. He was not satisfied, but parliament took up the question at the ensuing session and the

resolutions of the conference were embodied in the legislation which was carried, I believe, unanimously, by the House. Our legislation was brought before the imperial authorities and embodied in an instrument, and is there standing forever as the expression of the will of the Canadian people. Mr. McBride went to Great Britain. He repeated his request without success. Sir, I say that the attitude taken by the Liberal party on this particular question in the province of British Columbia was far more patriotic than that taken by the Hon. Mr. McBride and his political friends. I do not blame them, it was their right, but I say that the attitude of the government should not be condemned because it was that of a government representing public opinion, and more especially that of the prime ministers of the several provinces assembled here at Ottawa.

The hon. gentleman has referred to the question of oriental immigration. The great French statesman, M. Thiers, who could coin very happy phrases, once said that on every question he preferred to take ' le juste milieu.' I would translate that freely as the statement that on every question there is a happy medium which should be adopted. He was against extremes. I also am against extremes. Every intelligent citizen is against extremes. I am against any large influx of Japanese into British Columbia; I believe, with the hon. gentleman, that it would not be fair to the labour market of British Columbia that aliens should take the place of our pwn people, but I am also against that' other extreme of total exclusion, of a foreign race indeed but belonging to a friendly power. This government, which has been taken to task by my hon. friends representing British Columbia on this question of Japanese immigration, has nothing to fear, it seems to me, from public opinion in the province which they ably represent. The Liberal government was the first one to deal with the question of oriental immigration some years ago. At that time, there was a capitation tax of only $50 on every Chinese entering Canada. I well remember the able representative of the constituency of Burrard, the late Mr. Maxwell, in a speech which to my mind is a classical speech in our parliamentary records, requesting the government to increase the capitation tax on the Chinese coming to British Columbia. The Liberal government yielded to his request; they were anxious to meet the legitimate demands of that fairest of_ the fair provinces of the Dominion and increased the capitation tax from $50 to $100. The agitation continued in British Columbia, the people wished to have that capitation tax further increased. The government appointed a commission, which made a report recommending that in order to protect labour in British Co-Mr. LEMIETJX.

lumbia, the government should increase the capitation tax from $100 to $500. The government adopted the conclusions of that report.

But Sir, I shall be asked, did not that commission report also on the Japanese question? There were Japanese in large numbers in British Columbia five and ten years ago; indeed the Canadian census return show that at least 4,000 or 5,000 Japanese had settled in some of the valleys of British Columbia. The commissioners, as the right hon. the leader of the government, (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) well said this afternoon, differentiated between the Chinese and the Japanese. We all know that the Chinese are satisfied with menial work while the Japanese are a higher type of men. The commissioners reported that if the Japanese government remained faithful to the pledge that had been given by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, through the Japanese consul at Vancouver, they saw no reason why there should be any exclusion against the Japanese coming to Canada provided they would not exceed the number fixed by that agreement. Will my hon. friend who has so eloquently spoken this afternoon deny that there was more than a tacit understanding, that there was a written pledge taken by the Japanese government to restrict the number of Japanese coming to Canada to 600 a year? I read that agreement last year in the House when I came back from Japan. There was, therefore, a written understanding taken by the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs. Time went on and we had more agitation in British Columbia and in other places. _

I am always surprised to hear fair-minded people speak of the Japanese as an inferior race. I have been in Japan, the hon. gentlemen have not. I know that from the rumours that come from the province of British Columbia, from what we read in the press, that people are sometimes apt to consider the Japanese as an inferior race; but all those who have been students of Japanese history will bear witness to the fact that the Japanese are a rising race, a rising people, indeed the greatest race today in far Asia. Sir, the Japanese are not an inferior race. They have started in their march towards nationhood with the Dominion of Canada. Indeed they had an ancient and valuable civilization 2,000 or 3,000 years old, but in 1867 a revolution took place and the first act of the Japanese Emperor was to grant freedom of speech, freedom of thought, freedom of religious belief, not only to the Japanese, but to the foreigners as well. With respect to religion, let me say to those who are so anxious to exclude the Japanese from this country the few there are-because, indeed there are very few- that they are forgetting that from, the United States, from Canada, indeed from the particular province of British Col-

umbia, missionaries are leaving every year to preach the Gospel of Christ to the pagan races of Japan. They pieach a religion of toleration; they preach principles of liberty and principles of charity, and the first thing the Japanese hear on the other side is that those who send missionaries to Japan-missionaries well received, well treated, and highly respected-are demanding their expulsion from the ports of Canada. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that in Japan they have liberty of the press and religious liberty; they have high schools and great universities. Besides they adopted in 1867 the same system of government that we enjoy ourselves, the British system. It was not until the war with China that the name of Japan became great in the civilized world, and soon afterwards the mother country, through the diplomacy of Lord Lansdowne, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, made a treaty of alliance with the empire of Japan. Sir, I am always amazed to find hon. gentlemen opposite opposed to our friendly relations with Japan. I always thought that the Conservative party in Canada was a party of imperialists-in words if not in deeds, Mr. Speaker. Let me say that the hon. gentlemen who are so anxious to break all relations with Japan-

No, no.

Mr. LEMIEUX.

-do not represent the view of Canada, not only Liberal Canada, but also Conservative Canada. I remember that just after the riots of Vancouver the leader of the government was invited to address the Manufacturers' Association of Canada in Toronto. Did the hon. gentleman dilly-dally with the question? No; he boldly and resolutely said that on that question, as on every other great question, he would not be panicky, but he would do his duty by Canada and the empire. And, sir, the citizens of Toronto, the citizens of Ontario, the citizens of Canada generally, sided with him on that question. Now, my hon. friend knows that Japan is the ally par excellence of Great Britain in the far east. In a few days, Canada will be invited by my hon. friend from North Toronto to contribute to imperial defence, if I have read rightly the Orders of the Day. Is that the time, Mr. Speaker, for this country to break off all relations with Japan, the great ally of the mother country? Is that the time for us to expel the Japanese from our shores and to get into trouble with that great empire? We know that there exists in Asia to-day a feeling of unrest. It may perhaps appear somewhat vain on my part to speak of British politics at large. I admit that I am not conversant with every detail of British politics; but there are things which even to a simple mind like my own appear very vivid and very true.

Sir, in England to-day, every morning, the press-the * Times,' the ' Standard,' the ' Post,' the ' Chronicle '-repeat dolefully the' sentiments which are moving through that immense continent of Asia. We hear every morning of the unrest in India, and yet we are called upon by some hon. gentlemen to expel the Hindoos from Canada. Well there are Hindu agitators who say to the British authorities; 'What right have you to govern us? We claim to be British citizens, and yet when we go to a British colony, we who have served in the British army and are still clad in British garments, we are threatened with expulsion from that colony.' Is that a proper spirit a true imperial spirit to maintain in this country? Is not the governments policy of the happy medium the better policy? Did not the government do its duty in sending the Deputy Minister of Labour to London last year to discuss with Lord Morley what steps should be taken to prevent that immigration coming to Canada? Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, that if the government had complied with the request made by hon. gentlemen opposite, it would have served the interests of the British empire? For my part I believe not I think the government pursued a wise policy, a patriotic policy, a truly imperial policy. As regards the Japanese, we are told that we have nothing to lose by excluding them, that they are a danger to white labour in British Columbia. I will explain in a few minutes why they can no longer be a danger to white labour in British Columbia. But I say, from the point of view of our commercial relations with Japan, that the existence of the treaty, without the blot which hon. gentlemen.opposite would like to put upon it, is in the best interests of this Dominion. Why, sir, the right hon. leader of the government explained this afternoon that a natural sequence of the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway was the establishment of a line of steamers plying between Vancouver, Victoria, Yokohama and Hong Kong; and we have a right to expect from that direction a large trade for British Columbia and other provinces of the west. According to recent reports, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, is not satisfied with the steamers that were subsidized for

rnilio -fi ftdon

my hon. friend the member for North Toronto, the ' Empress of China ' and the ' Empress of Japan.' He intends to remove them and to replace them with the * Empress of Britain ' and the ' Empress of Ireland.' But there is something more which should appeal to us in maintaining friendly relations with the empire of Japan. We are in the process of building a great transcontinental railroad. When that railway

reaches Prince Rupert we shall have the shortest route between Asia and Europe. I believe the distance is something like 400 miles shorter from Prince Rupert thhn from Vancouver. At all events the route will be by far the shortest between Europe and Asia. Do you not then believe that the existence of this treaty is an advantage to Canada, and we may perhaps have a more favourable one later on, if we act as civilized people and friends of the empire.

I referred a moment ago to the written understanding given at the time that commission sat in the province of British Col-unbia-I think in the year 1900. I said that the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs had signed that pledge by which he promised to restrict Japanese immigration into Canada to a figure supposed at the time to be 600 a year. Did this government act blindly in 1907 when Japan was negotiating for a treaty with Canada? First of all, let us remember that when Japan revised her treaties in 1893, she was not so much concerned with the commercial advantages that might accrue to her through those treaties as with establishing the fact that she had attained the status of a great power and was anxious that her subjects should be treated in every part of the civilized world on the same level as * white people. Were we not therefore justified in following the example of the mother country, of Germany, of France and of the United States in our dealings with Japan? All these countries agreed that the people of Japan should be treated on a footing of equality with their own people. In 1907, when the treaty was negotiated with Canada, the understanding given in 1900, through the channel of the Japanese consul at Vancouver was supplemented, not by one, but by ten or twenty written understandings by the Japanese Consul General at Ottawa. The agreement thus arrived at was that the Japanese immigration would be restricted to certain figures, and it was subject to that specific condition that the treaty was signed by the Canadian and Japanese representatives jointly. Two years ago riots took place in British Columbia and the contention was made that Japan had broken faith with Canada. But as the result of the investigation which I made m Japan and that made last year by the Deputy Minister of Labour in British Columbia, it was very plainly proven that the influx complained of was not to be assigned to the J apanese authorities, but to some private corporations in the city of Vancouver. The report of that investigation was laid on the table of the House last year. I reported myself the result of my investigation in Japan. I had the assurance of the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs that his government could be trusted to live up to the agreement signed first by the then Minister of Foreign Affairs in the year Mr. LEMIEUX.

1900, and later on by the Japanese consul at Ottawa and that we could depend on the Japanese government living up to the restrictions mentioned in those letters. The result of my investigation dovetailed, so to speak, with that conducted at Vancouver by the Deputy Minister of Labour (Mr. Mackenzie King). There, it was shown that private corporations in British Columbia-perhaps friendly to hon. gentlemen opposite-interested in getting cheap labour, had brought in from Hawaii an influx of Japanese labour. The Japanese authorities, I submit, were not responsible for that sudden large influx of 10,000 to the shores of British Columbia a year or so ago, because it has been clearly shown that they were contract labourers who came from Hawaii and were brought in under false representations made by some private concerns in the province of British Columbia. The agreement arrived at, not last year but many years ago with the Japanese consul has been lived up to, and there is not now in the province of British Columbia any undue influx of Japanese labourers. In fact, no contract labourer can be_ imported or filtered into British Columbia, as in the past, without the written consent of the Canadian government. That is one of the features in the agreement existing between Japan and Canada. So that no fear need be entertained of any influx of undesirables-as hon. gentleman opposite called them-to the shores of British Columbia. The Japanese authorities will respect their agreement. They will not allow the immigration of contract labourers without the consent of the Canadian government; and labourers coming from Hawaii are excluded by the order in council passed last year. We need, therefore, fear no invasion from Hawaii any more than from Japan itself.

I heard my eloquent friend this evening argue that by that treaty we have given a foreign country the key to our door and were bound to admit any alien, whether desirable or undesirable, be they blind, deaf or dumb. I can only say to the hon. gentleman that this is a very rash statement. He did not mean it, I am sure-it was a slip of the tongue. If he will read the immigration law of the Dominion, if he will read the regulations, the very stringent regulations, of the department over which the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) presides, he will see that no blind, no deaf, no dumb, can be admitted to this country. He will see that the department has gone even further and that last year an order in council was passed by which we can prevent any immigrant from coming into this country if he does not come from the country of his birth or citizenship. The effect of that order in council is to prevent immigrants coming from Hawaii. I said a moment ago that contract labour cannot

come from'Japan. What, then, remains? Are hon. gentlemen opposite objecting to students, to tourists, to merchants? If they are, I say their objections are not well founded. I have lived for a few months in Japan, and can assure them that the Japanese are a highly civilized people. They need not be afraid of the merchants, the bankers, and especially of the students in Japan, for these represent the higher class of their own country and the best type of citizenship in this world.

I have already spoken too long, but I wish to repeat, in conclusion, that the Japanese authorities have lived up to the agreement arrived at with this government, that no contract labourers can come from Hawaii, and also that the order in Council passed last year prevents for the future the possibility of undesirable immigration. And let me say that with the declaration made by the Minister of Foreign Affairs last year, there is no fear that there will be any breach of faith on the part of the Japanese government. The Japanese authorities have no interest in promoting the emigration of their people to America. My hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) seems to know too much. Let me make good the statement I have made that the Japanese authorities have no earthly interest in promoting the emigration of their people to America. Last year, when I saw the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan, Count Hayashi, he stated to me that when this agreement would be divulged he might not long retain a Cabinet position, as it would make him very unpopular. They have no interest in promoting the emigration of Japanese to America, for they have a different civilization, and when their people come back from that country they come with different ideas. In the far east there is a great respect, if not a great reverence, for monarchial institutions, and, when Japanese subjects come back from America, they return with views and ideals different from those of the masses of their people and so they soon become an element that is not desirable in Japan. They have stopped subsidizing any emigration company doing work of transport between Japan and America. And, as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Burrell), who seems to be so conversant with the facts, ought to know, Count Hayashi declared, when giving his explanations in the House of Representatives in Japan, shortly after my return to Canada, and in an interview with the representatives of these large emigration companies which I read to this House last year, that he would stop subsidizing such companies as were sending emigrants to America. I am told that they are now giving subsidies to companies sending emigrants to Korea and Manchuria, which, as we know, are the two new spheres of influence of the empire of Japan. *

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

If the hon. minister will allow me, I would like to ask him a question purely for the purpose of information, and because I want to understand the conditions. The Japanese Foreign Minister, in proposing that policy, believed that it would make him so unpopular that he would cease to be minister. Does not that indicate, on the part of the people of Japan, a very strong desire to come to America, including Canada ?

Mr. LEMIEUX.

No.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Then, I misunderstood the position.