That may be so; it may all be so. But my right hon. friend knows there is such a thing as cabinet responsibility when you are a member of a government and he knows it stops when you are out of it. My right hon. friend knows also that he has had differences in his cabinet upon matters which have been iput before this House and which had the united support-properly united support-from his cabinet but which to-day do not carry the judgment of certain members of that cabinet. It is the only way we can carry on. I am not approaching this matter in any contentious spirit at all, but simply just trying to get an honest expression of why we are doing this thing, or the necessity on doing it to-day. Now is it an unreasonable thing for France to expect that if we appoint a Canadian Ambassador to Washington we should not also appoint a Canadian Ambassador at Paris, and if we do it in that case-
Let me correct my hon. friend as to the use of the word "ambassador." The government of which he was a member may have used that expression;
[ do not think the present administration has ever used it. There is a great deal of difference oetween "minister" and "ambassador," and the term "ambassador" has never been used by this government that I am aware of.
I do not know why we have this sudden attitude of bad temper on the part of the Prime Minister, and I do not know why I should lower myself at the moment by indulging with him in that sort of thing, and I do not intend to do it. As I was pointing out, in so far as the question is as to the interest of France on the one side, and the interest of the United States on the other, and the natural wish of France to have just as much recognition from Canada as Canada would get from the United States, it really makes no difference whether we call him ambassador or minister. If we send a minister to the States it will be expected that we sent a minister to France, and if we start in on that proposition, where are we going to stop? I suppose the reason of having a minister there is a diplomatic one. I understand that is how the government are supporting this question: that is
that we are to have diplomatic representation in Paris, and I can use the word " minister " with pleasure instead of the word "ambassador ". As I say, it makes no difference so far as this consideration I am advancing is concerned. Is the government intending to appoint a minister to Paris, and if not why not? On the matter of principle what is the distinction?
The government at the present time have a commissioner in Paris, France, whom my hon. friend has just extolled1 as being of great service to Canada. We have no corresponding official at Washington. The business we have at Washington is ten times the business transacted with France, and the variety and scope of it is very much greater. Lord Bryce stated that nine-tenths of the work performed at Washington by the British ambassador related to Canada. Sir Esme Howard, British ambassador at Washington, stated in the hearing of my hon. friend himself that he would welcome a minister from Canada and
that he believed a minister from Canada working in Washington with him would be of great benefit to us in the British Empire. When it comes to the matters to be dealt with, I have only to refer members of the House to the different matters we have discussed in the House and the questions put almost every week by hon. gentlemen opposite, relating for instance to the St. Lawrence waterways, the discussion with reference to the Chicago drainage canal, the lake of the Woods and water-powers down in the province of New Brunswick, and respecting smuggling along the Canadian frontier. These matters are increasing day by day, month after month and year after year, and the government has been feeling increasingly the need of having a minister at Washington with whom communication may be had frequently, and with the utmost freedom of exchange between the departments at Washington and the government here. In that connection I have said nothing about the important matters of trade. Hon. members opposite may feel that they do not want to trade with the United States or have anything to with them, but we take the view that it is impossible to live upon this continent and not have relations with our neighbours to the south, if we expect them to buy from us and if we are to sell to them. We think it is a necessity, and we think probably we have delayed a little long in having the kind of representation we should have at Washington.
try and keep away from any talk and will endeavour to look at this matter as a matter of plain, simple business, and I am going to overlook what my hon. friend says about trading with the United States; it does not make any difference to me, one way or the other what he says upon that score. I am trying to see if I can get something like honest dispassionate consideration of this matter with my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, and I am not having much luck. He says in connection with France that we have the commissioner, Mr. Roy. That is perfectly true. I would not for one minute object to my hon. friend selecting Mr. Mahoney or whoever is down there, or if he does not think he is the right man, to put a man in there, with the same powers as Mr. Roy. It is working out very well. I again say his work in Paris is excellent. My hon. friend will find no better work can be done, although the expense will be greater if he has a minister. But I do not think my hon. friend is really touching the larger side of 245i
the question. Does he really honestly think that if Canada goes into the separate business of diplomacy that Canada can stop with the United States? That is the question I put to him.
by separate business of diplomacy is quite plain. As matters stand at present the British Empire is, in diplomatic matters a united front. It is all done through the British diplomatic office. If we appoint a minister to do our work entirely for us, we are doing direct diplomatic work and we are entering the field of direct diplomacy.
I have not said that for one minute. I do not mean that. I am despairing of trying to get my hon. friend round to an honest basis. I have not said that and he knows it. I said we could have our representatives without any trouble. We have Mr. Roy doing excellent work without any trouble, and my hon. friend turns round and says that I say we cannot 'have anybody else. It is so extremely illogical that it would ibe a grand thing if we could turn that page over and start again.