is having difficulties about it. Perhaps some other member of the government can fathom it. If my right hon. friend desires to give it up, all right, I do not desire to trouble him. Now I am going to ask some other member of the government if we can very well appoint a minister to Washington and not appoint ministers to other countries. It is a plain, simple question. If we started out doing it could we continue to do it for a long time?
I suppose some day we will have a minister in every capital of the world. I shall be very much amazed if iCanada does not some day exceed in both extent and numbers of population any other portion of the British Empire.
friend's idea- is that this is a starting programme, winding up with a minister in every capital of the world, some day. I would suggest that before that perhaps it would be just as well to wait until you are a little better off. My hon. friend may think that any plea of economy is nonsense.
I take exception to what my hon. friend is saying. We have been raising taxation to pay bills with respect to the war, every dollar o,f which was money borrowed by the late government, and not a cent of which was ipaid by taxation during the war.
I have not heard of any great anxiety on the part of my right hon. friend to relieve the Mother Country in connection with any fiscal dbligaition. He ooun tens by saying that we are now paying for the cost of the war. We are paying. Perhaps, if imy right hon. friend had been here, there would have been no war. Perhaps he would have conducted it from some other place. I dio not know, but the war certainly took place.
I do not object to being called to order, but I object to being jailed to order when I fallow the Prime Minster in connection with a statement which he made. I did not invite it. I will drop the question of the war and save you, Mr. Chairman, the trouble of ruling on a matter which was brought up by the Prime Minister. We have in connection with our present association with the Mother Country two distinct ties. We have, on the one hand, the appeal to the Privy Council and, on the other, a common diplomatic representation. I know some hon. members think we should get rid of the appeal to the Privy Council and other
hon. members think we should geit rid of our common diplomatic representation. We are now considering the question of commencing to get rid of -our common diplomatic representation. We are also doing that at a time when, unfortunately, we have whispers and more than whispers as to what the final outcome of Canada is to be, whether she is to remain a part of the British Empire or to be annexed to the United States.
Some hon. gentlemen laugh. I am telling them that they will hear this being discussed. It is unfortunate; it .is improper in the last degree, but it is being discussed. We have, besides that, ties of history and blood. But the real ties that we ,ean get rid of are the ties of united diplomatic front and, as I say, our appeal to the Privy Council. I deprecate this idea of heat about this question. There ought not to be any heat aboftt it, and I have done my best to keep away from any heat. I put this question to my right hion. friend: Is this a good time to raise this issue?
I have not said a word about my right hon. friend's loyalty, but as we stand at present, we have at least one front. I am not saying that we cannot and should not have any amount of rows, but they should be family rows. We shall have them in any amount. We are not bound by the representation of British diplomacy in any way. Parliament itself is the sole authority which binds.
friend, in speaking about one front, think a mistake was made when Canada was represented at Versailles and at Washington by separate representation in the treaties that were made with those countries? That was diplomacy too. .
special matter and a special occasion, and it is not anything which takes Canada out of the empire as a whole in the slightest. It is not any separate formal organisation. It is not any cutting of old ties.
Not the slightest mistake, but she is represented there in connection with the League of Nations. I want to give my right hon. friend the credit of sincerity. My right hon. friend may think this is all nonsense. I am not saying that he does not think it is all nonsense, but I very honestly think it is not nonsense, and that Canada, as part of the empire and working behind a common diplomatic front, has far more power and can use an infinitely greater power for good than she will ever have in any other way. I honestly think it is a great mistake to depart from that principle.