Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).

That shows that the hon. gentleman's party is more frequently wrong than my party is. Besides, I do not pose as an independent member of the House or as the leader of a third or fourth party. The hon. member (Mr. Bourassa) says he cannot condemn this government, because they have exercised due diligence in the matter, and that it is the fault of the British government. But, considering that these tenders had to be put in in April of last year and that a whole year has gone by, it seems clear that the Minister of Agriculture has not exercised the diligence he should have shown. And, when the matter was brought to his attention last January by the clerk of the legislative assembly in Manitoba, the hon. minister admitted that he knew nothing about it whatever. One would imagine that in such a case as this a clause referring to a matter under his own department, a matter so important as the supply of the army rations, the hon. Minister of Agriculture would be the first man in Canada to be seized of the facts and the man who would take the first and promptest measure. But the records show that, as I say, he knew nothing about the matter until his attention was

called to it last January by the clerk of the legislative assembly of Manitoba. Therefore, we have a right to condemn the hon. gentleman for not being as diligent as he should have been, and for not taking steps for doing away with this clause in the contract. A series of resolutions were passed by the legislature of Manitoba last February, just prior to the prorogation of the legislature, urging upon the Dominion government the necessity of petitioning the imperial authorities in favour of allowing bur cattle to be placed on the same footing as the cattle of Great Britain in relation to these contracts. Those resolutions were passed unanimously. They were moved by a man who is a large exporter of cattle. Evidently, the people of the North-west look upon this as a most important matter and one that, unless a change is made, will have a serious detrimental effect upon the interests of our people. Therefore, I view this differently from the hon. member for Labelle, and think that the resolution introduced by the hon. member for Macdonald is worthy of the support of every Conservative member of the House and of every independent member as well.

Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).

I feel disposed to adopt a middle course in this matter, because it seems to me that both the British government and our own government are to blame. I do not believe that the home government will vary from the course that is indicated to us by Mr. Hanbury's speech. And why should they ? There is no doubt that if they admit our own beef on the same footing as the home-bred beef, they will do a certain amount of injury to the stock-raisers of the British Isles, their own constituents; and I doubt very much if any pressure we can bring to bear upon them would lead them to remove that impediment to our trade. Where I find the action of the home government at fault is in the fact that we ourselves having given them a considerable preference in our market, and having, as indicated by my hon. friends from the west, made considerable sacrifices, particularly of late years, in defence of the flag, it seems to me that under these circumstances we would be entitled to more consideration. But as to our being successful in any representations we may make, I doubt very much. The language of Mr. Hanbury, as quoted by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa), is much more positive than is generally used by British statesmen, and I think we may regard it as a certainty that our efforts for a long time to come in that direction will be fruitless.

But I wish particularly to point out that our own government has in that respect a duty to perform, and that the Minister of Agriculture has totally failed to perform that duty. I believe that when the House is in session it is the prerogative of the House to express its opinion on matters of this kind; and during the recess, it belongs to the department interested to make proper representations to the home government in trade matters of this magnitude which concern the welfare of our agriculture. It is the duty of the Minister of Agriculture at any time, and at very short notice, to make proper representations to foreign authorities, and to the home government particularly, when that is necessary for the preservation of our interests. The question which arises in my

mind is, What has the Minister of Agriculture done under the present circumstances 1 He has had three or four days' notice at least of this motion, and what has he brought down to the House to show that he has used diligence ? A motion such as that made by my hon. friend (Mr. Boyd) places upon the Minister of Agriculture the obligation of showing that he has used diligence in the premises.

I never had any notice of a motion. The hon. gentleman said he was going to make some remarks about this matter, but until he moved this motion this afternoon we never knew anything about it.

Mr. MONK.

Agriculture excited the interest of our commissioner in England ; it was correspondence, a copy of which is here found, from one of the cattle ranchers, if I am not mistaken; a private individual interested in the cattle trade took up this question and brought it to the notice of Lord Strath-cona. Lord Strathcona having communicated with the War Office, he was not sure, was not certain, but he imagined that possibly the Minister of Agriculture might take some interest in this matter, and sent him over this correspondence. Therefore, though I agree with the bon. member for Labelle in thinking that the British government is at fault, if we are to take the view expressed by the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Roche), still it seems to me it is impossible not to arrive at the conclusion that the Minister of Agriculture has not moved one step in this matter, or at least, he has not seen fit to lay before the House proof of any diligence whatever. What we have from him is the proof that he knew nothing about the matter, and a letter from our commissioner in London inviting his attention to the matter, and to the correspondence which he, upon his own responsibility, had had with the War Office. With what result ? None whatever. That restriction pointed out by the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Boyd) still exists, and in my opinion will continue to exist. The Minister of Agriculture will not deny that it exists, and we are precluded from supplying beef to the British army. Out cattle'are excluded today as they were a month ago. There is no change, the Minister of Agriculture knows it. It may be true that for supplying the army in the field in South Africa, as competition has been invited from all quarters. as there are contracts with the Americans, so there may be contracts with the people of this country for furnishing these war supplies. But will the minister state here on his responsibility that the restriction complained of by the hon. member for Macdonald has been removed, and that that form of contract is to-day changed ? If he will make that statement" he will enlighten the House on the point that we are discussing.

Under these circumstances it seems to me that there is ground for the claim that these things have occurred, and that they have been brought to the notice of the minister, although that should have been unnecessary. That should have been unnecessary. That hon. gentleman was travelling in England last year and surely this was the matter which might have caught his attention without his attention having been specially called to it.

Mr. SAM HUGHES (North Victoria).

He was treading on air.

Mr. MONK.

I do not say that, but I do say that he, having been in England, when Mr. MONK.

this important matter was brought to his attention he failed to ustrdiligence. Under these circumstances it is our duty to say that he has been lacking. Now, I am not going [DOT] to take up any further time upon this question, but it is a matter which invites the attention and consideration of all the members of this House. When year after year, we have given a preference to the home government, in our markets, a preference which I. for one, and I believe some hon. members on this side of the House, claim has been a disastrous one [DOT] to our own industries in many respects, we find here, as I have found on more than one occasion, that our own interests on the other side have not been guarded as they should have been. I will not carry this discussion any further.

Mr. W. ROCIIE (Halifax).

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of asking any of those hon. gentlemen who have spoken on the other side of the House what reason was given by the British government for the exclusion of Canadian cattle. They have not been pleased to enlighten us on this subject.

Mr. MONK.

I suppose the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche, Halifax) does not ask me to enlighten him on that subject. I suppose, however, that there are two reasons, one perhaps resulting from this embargo on our cattle and another probably from the praiseworthy desire to encourage their own stock raisers. I do not blame them.

Mr. ROCHE (Halifax).

Did they keep out Canadian cattle because they were diseased or for any reason of that kind.

Mr. BENNETT.

I think it was deceased cattle they wanted.

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that the correspondence which has been referred to by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has completely met the argument of the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) that it was the High Commissioner in London who was in a sense responsible for the injury done to Canada in the contracts, or the tenders for food supplies for the Britisli army. I cannot see how tile hon. member for Labelle can possibly drag the name of the High Commissioner into this question. The High Commissioner. I can assure him, has been most energetic in looking after Canadian interests. The High Commissoner, without the authority of the Canadian government endeavoured to have the embargo on Canadian cattle removed, and I am satisfied by tiie correspondence which has been produced here that he is still active in looking after Canada's interest.

Mr. BOURASSA.

Does the hon. gentleman (Mr. Hughes. Victoria) not know that the letter just read by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) is dated the 18th

3S5S

of November ? How is it that the High Commissioner, who is looking after our business, did not know between the 30th June, 1901, and the 18th November, 1902, that the War Office was putting a condition into its contracts which would do harm to Canada ? Is he not there to look after our business ?

Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).

No, he is not there to look after contracts of that kind, or to conduct such business ; he is only there to carry out the instructions of the Canadian government. It is the duty of the hon. Minister of Agriculture here and his agents to see that the interests of Canada are properly guarded in all these respects. I merely rose to point out the fact that the High Commissioner seems to be the only person in London who has taken an active part in looking after Canada's interests in this matter.

House divided on amendment (Mr. Boyd).

yeas :

Messieurs

Alcorn, LaRivi&re,

Barker, . Lennox,

Bennett, Leonard,

Birkett, MacLaren (Perth),

Blain, McCormick,

Borden (Halifax), McGowan,

Boyd, . McIntosh,

Brock, McLeod,

Bruce, Monk,

Carscallen, Morin,

Clarke, Northrup,

Cochrane, Osier,

Culbert, Porter,

Earle, Richardson,

Fowler, Robinson (Elgin),

Ganong, Roche (Marquette),

Gourley, Rosamond,

Hackett, Sherritt,

Haggart, Sproule,

Halliday, Taylor,

Henderson, Tolton,

Hughes (Victoria), Vrooman,

Ingram, Ward,

Kemp, Wilmot,

Kidd, Lancaster, Wilson.-51.

NAYS : Messieurs

Ar gers, Legris,

Basinet, Lemieux,

B61and, Lewis,

Bernier, Lovell,

Blair, Loy,

Bourassa, Macdonald,

Bourbonnais, Mackie,

Bureau, MacKinnon,

Calvert, ! j MacLaren (Hunt'n),

Campbell, McCarthy,

Carbonneau, MeColl,

Carroll, McCreary,

Champagne, McEwen,

Christie, McGugan,

Ccpp, Mclsaac,

Costigan, McLennan,

Cowan, Madore,

Delisle, Malouin,

Demers (LSvis), Marcil (Bagot),

Douglas, Marcil (Bonaventure)

Dugas, Martineau,

Dyment, Matheson,

Edwards, Meigs,

Emmerson, Morrison,

Etbier, Mulock,

Farquharson, Oliver,

Fielding, Paterson,

Fisher, Power,

Fitzpatrick, Prefontaine,

Flint, Puttee,

Fortier, Reid (Ristigouche),

Gauvreau, Riley,

Geoffrion, Roche (Halifax),

German, Ross (Ontario),

Gibson, Ross (Victoria, N.S.),

Girard, Scott, .

Gould, Siftou,

Guthrie, Smith (Vancouver),

Harwood, Stephens,

Heyd, Stewart,

H olmes, Sutherland (Essex),

Hughes (Kings, P.E.I.) Sutherland (Oxford),

Johnston (Cape Breton), Talbot,

Kendall, Tarte,

Lang, Thompson,

Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Tolmie,

Laurier (L'Assom'n), Turcot,

Lavergne, Turgeon,

LeBlanc, Wade-98.

PAIRS :

Ministerial. Opposition.

Hyman, Gilmour,

Logan, Lefurgey,

Cartwright, Tupper,

Johnston (Lambton), Simmons,

Fraser, Bell,

Horsey, Pringle,

Harty, Reid (Grenville),

Charlton, Tisdale,

Bickcrdike, Cargill,

Parmelee, Pope,

Archambault, Avery,

Beith, Kendrey,

Belcourt, Kaulbach,

Borden (Kings, N.S.) Maclean,

Brown, Bail,

Bruneau, Roddick,

Davis, Casgrain,

ErL, Calvin,

Gallery, [DOT]Seagram,

McCool, Clancy,

Murray, La veil.

Pioulx, Robinson (Northum-

berland),

Russell, Broder,

Schell, Smith (Wentworth),

Tobin, Clare,

Tucker, Hale,

Wright, Johnston (Cardwell),

Amendment (Mr. Boyd) negatived.

Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle).

I beg to give notice. Mr. Speaker, that when the House is again moved into Committee of Supply, I shall move the following amendment : '

That this House protests against the maintenance of the provisions of the Diseases of Animals Act, G.B., against Canadian cattle, and hopes that the Prime Minister will take advan-

tage of the proposed imperial conference in London, to press upon the British government the necessity of amending the said^ Act in order to free Canadian cattle from the operations of the said Act.

Mr. SAMUEL BARKER (Hamilton).

Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, 1 desire to call the attention of the House and of the government to the budget speech delivered on the 10th of this month by the Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island, in which he spoke of certain negotiations now pending between the government of that province and the government of this Dominion with regard to claims toy that province upon what is known as the fishery award. I propose to read a portion of the speech of the premier of Prince Edward Island in which that reference is made. He was speaking of the taxation of his province, and he said :

We had in mind a plan of taxation which would practically remodel the whole existing system, but when we set about making up our estimates for the year, we found that the deficit woul be so small that it would be absurd to change the existing system of taxation in order to meet it. But not only that, I believe before the year 1902 closes, we will receive from Ottawa a sum which will be sufficient to carry on the affairs of this province without any additional taxation. We tnought it would be absurd to go to the expense and annoyance of putting extra taxes on the people, entailing a large expenditure in connection therewith, when we felt confident from advices from Ottawa that in a very short time our claims for our share of the Fishery Award would be recognized and paid. I am well aware that this has been flaunted, this little flag of truce has been held before the face of the electors of the province for a great number of years-that is true, but every thing has its day. We all know the story of the importunate widow.'

Then the Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island goes on to refer to certain claims heretofore made by the province upon tills government, and which claims were successfully made. I will not allude to these, as they are past transactions. The Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island continues, in his speech :

Thus was our persistence rewarded and so will it he with our Fishery Award. $4,000,000 of hard earned money was paid by the American government to the British government and by them paid to the Canadian government ; money earned by the sweat of the brow, by the toiling on the rowlocks of the boats of our island fishermen ; and by the terms of union and by the evidence given before the Halifax commission, we are entitled to our [DOT]share of that money. It has been claimed for years and now I am happy to say our hope is near fruition. Messrs. Farquharson and Mackinnon, who represent West and East Queen's in the House of Commons, have been pressing this claim, and Mr. BOURASSA.

I have communications not only from Mr. Mackinnon but also from the Department of Marine at Ottawa, which indicate that our claim has been so far admitted that the federal government is willing that it should be submitted to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision as to whether or not we are entitled to the amount. As to the result, any lawyer who has studied the question, the statute, and the evidence taken before the commission' will admit that we as well as Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova. Scotia, are entitled to the $4,000,000 ; and if it should have been ours in 1878, we are now clearly entitled also to the interest that the Dominion government has been putting into its .coffers for all these years down to date. They have been collecting interest on our $1,000,000 at 3 per cent, $30,000 per annum and have been paying back in fisheries bounties to this province the sum of $13,000. We will be entitled to receive at least $30,000 yearly interest, per annum, since confederation, in addition to our $1,000,000, and, Mr. Speaker, I feel all the more confident that our claim will be acknowledged since I find that the great province of Quebec, the pivotal province of. the Dominion, has taken the initiative and is now claiming her share of the award.

Now, Sir, in the King's speech at the opening of the session, we were told that this government had been negotiating with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company about a matter between the people of the Northwest and that company, and that the government had agreed to refer that matter to the Supreme Court. That was thought of sufficient importance to be communicated to this House in the speech from the Throne ; but although important negotiations affecting nearly $7,000,000-84,000,000 of principal and about $2,800,000 interest-although these negotiations have been pending with certain provinces, not one word has been communicated to parliament on this subject, and that, mark you, although the negotiations seem to have progressed so far that members of this House who are in communication with the government, have been able to inform the premier of Prince Edward Island that this claim is so far admitted! that the question will be submitted to the courts. Further than that, the government of Prince Edward Island seem to have had communications officially with the Minister of Marine upon this subject, and all this has been going on without the slightest word to this House. I do not know that I need make any extended remarks upon that question. It does seem to me a most extraordinary thing, that while this House is sitting and when we are only two weeks from the end of this session, we have not heard a word| on this subject from any of the ministers. I cannot believe that this statement of the premier of Prince Edward Island ds wholly without foundation. So certain is he of what he speaks, that he actually puts off the raising of necessary taxation in his province, because he believes that during this year and before another session this money will be paid, and it will not be necessary to raise that taxation, but that the province will be able

to pay its debts out of the money that is to be handed over by the Dominion government. I am not going to discuss the question as to whether the provinces are entitled to any portion of this award. I think it will be found that the people of this Dominion are not disposed to concede that this is not an asset of the Dominion at large. Whatever may be the case upon that point, what I contend for is this : That

no such negotiations should have been carried on without our having knowledge of them in this House. I think, Sir, we are entitled to at least that much consideration. It is not merely that the province of Prince Edward Island is being led to expect the payment of this money, but probably Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are expecting it as well. I suppose these are all importunate widows as the premier of Prince Edward Island calls them. We, therefore, have four importunate widows appealing to the government for this $4,000,000 principal and a quarter million dollars interest. Perhaps it would be good advice for :me to tender the Prime Minister to beware of the widows. However, that may be, if the right hon. gentleman's government is negotiating with them he should let us know it. I hope that the First Minister will be able to assure the House, that notwithstanding the positive language used by the premier of Prince Edward Island there is really no foundation for these expectations of his.

I have no fault to find with the spirit of the remarks of my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker), and in view of the speech which has been delivered by the Prime Minister of Prince Edward Island, perhaps it would not be amiss if I should take this opportunity of altogether reassuring my hon. friend from Hamilton on the fears which he entertains that we may succumb to the blandishments of these several widows of whom he has spoken. I hope our virtue will be equal to the occasion, and that he will have nothing to fear upon that score. There has been loose talk, as my hon. friend knows for several years in the maritime provinces, and even in the province of Quebec : That the award which

we obtained under the Washington treaty (which was not $4,000,000, but $4,500,000) should be distributed amongst the provinces. My hon. friend is aware that for a great many years past-almost since the time we received that award-we have been distributing, practically the interest on it in the shape of bounty to the fishermen; and whether the fishermen receive it from us or from the interested governments in the provinces in which they live, I do not know it would make very much difference. But there is another question which has occasioned a good deal of correspondence with, and remonstrances from the maritime provinces-indeed from all the provinces connected with fishery questions-and that is the foreshore question. A judgment was given three years ago by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Gouncil, which, unfortunately has left in doubt a good many questions with regard to the ownership of the foreshore. We have received communications from the several governments upon this point, and we have agreed to have a conference upon the whole subject. As to the distribution of the money which we have received under the fisheries award, though I am aware that claims have been made to us by several provinces, no decision has been arrived at. In fact, the subject has not been considered at all; and I may supplement what I say now by stating that at an early day the whole correspondence will be brought down, and then my hon. friend will know what action has been taken.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Might I ask the right hon. gentleman whether certain resolutions and memorials from boards of trade, which were to be brought down in answer to a question by my hon. friend from Toronto, have been brought down.