ORDERS DISCHARGED.

Mr. MACDONELL.: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move that order No. 49, of Public Bills and Orders, for the second reading of Bill (No. 78) to amend the Railway Act, be now called, for the purpose of enabling me to move that it be discharged from the Order Paper, because it is quite obvious that an opportunity will not be afforded me to bring this Bill before the House as long as it remains on Public Bills and Orders, but in the event of the Minister of Railways bringing in an amendment to the Railway Act, I may have an opportunity in that way to bring the matter before the House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Order discharged accordingly.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: On behalf of Mr. Beaunarlant, I beg to make the same motion with regard to Order No. 28, for the second reading of Bill (No. 12) to amend the Civil Service Amendment Act,
1908.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Order discharged accordingly.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
/

Mr. MADDIN:: What amount of bonded freight wa9 checked to, or delivered at, during the last ten years, each of the following ports in G.uys-borongh county, N.S., Sonora, Port Hillford, Oyster Ponds and Country Harbour?


Mr. PATERSON.: The Department of Customs has not any record of bonded freight checked to or delivered at the places mentioned. Sonora, Port Hillford, Oyster Ponds and Country Harbour are not points on which the manifesting of bonded goods is authorized.


THE CORONATION CONTINGENT.
Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe):: What rule is being observed in the selection of officers and men for the coronation contingent ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: Attention is directed to a reply given, on the 9th instant, to a similar inquiry. (See

pages 3345 and 3346, unrevised ' Hansard.' So far, however, as the conditions governing the selection of non-commissioned officers and men are concerned, the following have been added to those already specified:
(a)	The non-commissioned officers and men selected are to be chosen from the most efficient companies of infantry regiments. and each representative must be from a different company.
(b)	No application from any one who has already taken part in former contingents on such great occasions as the jubilee of the late Queen Victoria, or the coronation of the late King will be considered.
(c)	Preference is to be given to those who have served in the field.


THE PETAWAWA CAMP.
Mr. WHITE (Renfrew):: 1 What branches of the permanent forces and the active militia respectively, will encamp for training at the Petawawa Military Camp during coming season?
2.	When will this camp open and what will be the duration of same?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Cavalry, artillery, engineers, infantry and departmental corps.
2.	(a) The camp will, in all probability, open about the first week in June.
(b)	It is expected that troops will be in camp at Petawawa during the months of June, July and August. The exact duration of the camp has not, as yet, been definitely decided upon.


THE CENSUS.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Have the enumerators for the coming
census been named?
2.	When will the taking of the census begin ?
3.	When is it expected that the results, as to population, will be known?
4.	How many enumerators will or have been named for the city of Montreal?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	No.
2.	June 1, 1911.
3.	About the end of November, 1911.
4.	Approximately 300.
*WEST INDIES STEAMSHIP SERVICE. Mr. LEWIS:
1 Has the government renewed the contract with Pickford & Black for a fortnightly steamship service from St. John and Halifax to the West Indies?
2. Tf so. in granting such renewal and subsidy, have Canadian interests been protected and provision made that the mails, passengers and freight will be carried in Canadian bottoms ?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER r
1.	Yes. subject to the concurrence of the British government.
2.	The contractors are required to employ steamships of British register.


INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY TRAFFIC.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	At how many points on the International boundary do United States railways and Canadian railways cross said International boundary, west of Port Arthur and east of Port Arthur, respectively?
2.	What is the average distance of the Great Northern railway from the Canadian boundary?
3.	Apart from the Great Northern railway, at how many points west of Port Arthur and at how many points east of Port Arthur do United States railways extend to a point within 30 miles of our southern International boundary ?


Mr. GRAHAM:: List of railways crossing the International boundary, west of Port Arthur. Canadian railways cross at eight points, United States railways cross at fifteen points, viz.: Canadian railways:
1.	Canadian Northern, at Lake of Woods.
2.	"	at Rainy River.3.	"	at. Fort Francis.4.	Canadian Pacific at Emerson.5.	Canadian Pacific at North Portal.6.	Alberta Railway and Irrigation Co., at
Coutts.
7.	Canadian Pacific at Ginsgak, B.C.
8.	Canadian Pacific? at Huntingdon, B.C.
United States Railways:	.
1.	Great Northern, at Pembina.
2.	tt	at Gretna.3.	ft	at Wakeham.4.	tt	at Bannerman.5.	tt	at Gateway, B.C.6.	ft	at Bedlington, B.C7 8.	tt tt	at Waneta, B.C.V.	tt	at Laurier, B.C.10.	tt	at Carson, B.C.11.	tt	at Ferry, B.C.12.	tt	at Molson, B.C.13.	ft	at Chopeka, B.C.14.	ft	at Huntingdon, B.C.15.	at Blaire, B.C.
List of railways east of Port Arthur. Canadian railways cross at 23 points, United States railways cross at one point. Canadian Railways:
1.	Grand Trunk railway at Sarnia.
2.	Grand Trunk railway at Windsor.
3.	Canadian Southern at Amherstburg.
4.	Grand Trunk railway at Fort Erie.
5.	Canadian Southern at Fort Erie.
6.	Grand_ Trunk railway at Niagara Falls.
7.	Canadian Southern at Niagara Falls.
8 Ottawa and New York at Cornwall.
9.	Grand Trunk railway at Dundee.

10.	St. Lawrence and Adirondack at or near Kelso.
11.	Grand Trunk railway at Mooer's.
12.	Grand Trunk railway at Rouses Point.
13.	Quebec, Montreal and Southern at Noyan.
14.	Rutland and Noyan, at Noyan Junction.
15.	Canadian Pacific at Abercorn, Quebec.
16.	Canadian Pacific at Mansonville, P.Q.
17.	Massawippi Valley at Stanstead Junction.
18.	Grand Trunk Tailway at Stanhope.
19.	Hereford railway at Conaus Mills.
20.	Canadian Pacific at Lowelltown.
21.	Canadian Pacific at Aroostook, N.B.
22.	Canadian Pacific at Debec Junction.
23.	Canadian Pacific at Vanceboro, N.B. United States Railways:
1.	Washington County near Princeton. _ Passes for five miles over Canadian territory in the province of New Brunswick.	_	_
The department has no official information to answer questions numbers 2 and 3. They relate to matters entirely within-the United States.
SHIPPING IN GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY. Mr. SINCLAIR:
What is the number of vessels arriving at and departing from the following ports in Guysborough county, N.S., during the year ending March 31, 1910, viz.:-Sonora, Port Hillford, Country Harbour, and Isaac's Harbour; and what is the registered tonnage of such vessels?


William Paterson: Isaac's Harbour and Country Harbour- Vessels arrived, 246; tonnage, 40,790; vessels departed 252; tonnage, 42,260.
Port Hillford-Vessels arrived, 112; vessels departed, 113.
Sonora-Vessels arrived, 9; departed, 9. Port Hillford and Sonora, being preventive stations but not outports, the tonnage of vessels arriving and departing is not given in the Trade and Navigation tables.


IMPORTS OP EGGS.
Mr. WHITE (Renfrew):: 1.	How many eggs were imported into Canada from foreign countries during the last fiscal year, and the present fiscal year to date, respectively?
2.	What quantity of the above were imported from each country, respectively?


William Paterson: 1	and 2. The quantity of eggs imported into Canada, by countries, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1910, and the ten months ended January 31, 1911, respectively, was as follows:


George Perry Graham: Fiscal year	Ten months
	ended March	ended Jan.
	31, 1910.	31, 1911.
	Dozen.	Dozen.
Great Britain..	.. 7,226	12,040Hong Kong.. ..	.. 41,245	52,739China	.. 87,075	29,1299	Germany	48,000Japan	.. 453	125United States..	.. 757,316	341,916Total	.. 893,324	483,949


RECIPROCITY-PULP AND PAPER.
Mr. PERLEY:: Is the alteration in the pulp and paper schedule of the reciprocity arrangement, as passed by the United States House of Representatives, one that is permissible and satisfactory to the government under the tentative agreement made between the government of the United States and the government of Canada?


Mr. FIELDING:: The pulp and paper item in the schedule has not been altered by the Bill which has passed the House of Representatives. There was an obvious error in the drafting of the Bill as respects that item. The error has been corrected and the Bill as passed is in accord with the agreement in that behalf.


PAPERS ASKED FOR.
Mr. FOSTER.: Before the orders of the day are called. I want to ask the attention of the Minister of Finance. The papers in respect to the Farmers' Bank have been brought down, and I supposed that the motion was broad enough to have covered another piece of information that I wanted to get, but it was not among the papers, and the Finance Minister may not have thought it necessary to include it. What I would like to have is a rescript of the meeting of the Treasury Board on the 30th of November, 1906, and the names of the components of the Treasury Board at that time-that is, the whole minutes.


William Stevens Fielding: I see no objection.


APPLAUSE IN THE GALLERIES.
Mr. J. D. REID.: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the government to a letter in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of this morning, which reads as follows:
Editor Citizen. -I understand now that it is a rule of the House of Commons that strangers in the public gallery shall not signify their approval of the sentiments of a speaker on the floor. Yesterday I went up to hear Mr. Sifton on the reciprocity question. His observations appealed to me as a patriotic Canadian and I forcibly desired to manifest my appreciation and did so, although quite unaware at the time that I was infring-

ing a House rule. For my action I was escorted from the gallery by the Sergeant-at-Arms and a Dominion policeman, an honour which I appreciated. My object in writing at this time is to invoke your good offices to secure the posting of notices prominently in the gallery warning those, who like myself up to yesterday, may not know about this rule that applause is forbidden.-PETER GLAVEY, 37* York street.
I understand that this gentleman is a respectable citizen of Ottawa. There is nothing to show that the officials in charge in the galleries are different from any other persons, in the way of uniform or anything of that kind, and I think the government should take some steps to carry out the wishes of this gentleman so that there will not be such an occurrence again. I understand that this gentleman said that had the Sergeant at Arms, or any one else whom he knew to be an official, requested him not to do it, he would have obeyed their request. It is certainly to be regretted that a gentleman should be expelled from the House when he did not know the rules. Therefore I would ask the Prime Minister to see that in future any one in the galleries who happens to make a mistake of that kind should not be expelled, but requested to remain and hear the discussion.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend knows that this is a matter which is not at all under the control of the government, but under the control of the Speaker and the officers of the House. But it is a well known rule that no expression of approbation or disapprobation in the gallery is allowed.


MANITOBA LEGISLATIVE BUILDING SITE.
Mr. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: I would like to call the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia and of the government to a despatch in the Ottawa * Citizen ' of this morning. It has been reported that there have been some negotiations with reference to the government of Manitoba acquiring the land adjoining the legislative buildings, so that they might erect new buildings. The present buildings are somewhat out of date, and in order to get a proper site, the Manitoba government would like to acquire the land at present occupied by the old barracks. The despatch from Winnipeg is as follows:
Winnipeg, Man., March 1.-The proposal to secure the Fort Osborne barracks site, which adjoins the present parliament buildings, to permit of the building of a new legislative hall has been abandoned for the time.
Representations had been made to the Minister of Militia with a view to the government purchasing the property. Replies to this request were read in the House to-day by Hon. Robert Rogers, stating that the Dominion
government asks $1,000,000 for the property and does not want to vacate until 1915. Mr. Rogers said that the price asked was four or five times the value of the site and that it was out of the question.
It seems to me that in these negotiations the Crown, as trustee in the right of the Dominion, is pinching the Crown as trustee for the province of Manitoba, and I am pleased to give the hon. minister an opportunity to remove any such impression, or to emphasize my impression of them that they will pinch everything in sight !


Frederick William Borden: The question is very easily answered. The Militia Department has its barracks and drill hall in Winnipeg situated on ground very near the parliament buildings. I understand that the government of Manitoba wish to extend their buildings as they find the present accommodation insufficient. A few weeks ago the Hon. Mr. Rogers, member of the Manitoba government, called to see me, and asked if we would be willing to sell our holdings so as to enable the government of Manitoba to make this extension. I replied that certainly we would be glad to do anything in our power to facilitate that extension,, and that I would personally take the matter up. I asked him what price he would be willing to pay. He said he did not know, but the government of Manitoba would be willing to pay the value. I then sent an officer to inspect, as the case seemed to be urgent, and estimate the value. That officer returned about three weeks ago, and after consulting my colleagues in council I sent a communication to the government of Manitoba to the effect that we had had the property valued, and that the Dominion government would be prepared to accept a fair valuation, namely $1,000,000. It is only right, perhaps, that I should add, as a special answer to my hon. friend, who has intimated that there was some desire to pinch somebody, that our selling that property would necessitate a rebuilding of extensive barracks at or near Winnipeg, and also the purchase of land in Winnipeg, and the building of a new drill hall. All this would cost just about the amount of money that we ask for that property. The property is satisfactory to us to-day and we do not want to change it, but are willing to sell in order to suit the convenience of the Manitoba government^


EXCLUSION OF COLOURED ALIENS.
Mr. DANIEL.: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) a moment to a representation I received from some coloured constituents of mine, inclosing a clipping from a newspaper which I had better read:


UNITED STATES'NEGROES BARRED.
[Stage Direction]
Winnipeg, Man., Feb. 24.-The Dominion government has decided to prohibit the im-
[Stage Direction]
migration of negroes from the United States and stopped at the boundary a party that wanted to go to western Canada. The negroes were turned back because they were regarded as undesirable citizens.
I may say that my correspondents do not object to coloured people being turned back if turned back for other than racial considerations only, and my object in bringing this to the notice of the Minister of the Interior is' to ascertain why these particular individuals were turned back-whether because of racial considerations, or because they were undesirable citizens for other reasons.
Mr. OLIVER.: I cannot, of course, give a specific answer because I have no knowledge of the case alluded to, and have not had the- time or opportunity to acquaint myself with the facts, but I can assure my hon. friend that there are no instructions issued by the Immigration Branch of my department which will exclude any man on account of his race or colour except in such specific cases as are provided for by statute or agreement laid on the table.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Perhaps the hon. minister will find out the exact cause and give later a specific answer.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
Mr. MONK.: There are some delayed returns to which I would call the attention of the government. There was an order of the House on the 5th of December last for a statement of the expenditures made out of the money voted by parliament last year for the navy. I would like to have this as soon as possible. There was also an order of the House of the 7th of December for a copy of the report of the Imperial Defence Committee of the Privy Council in England concerning the defence of the empire. That has been communicated to the dependencies, and I would like to have it on the table here as soon as possible. There was further an order of the House on the 6th of February for a copy of the . declaration of London, and of the proceedings of the International Naval Conference at London. Outside of these there were two orders of the 23rd of January for documents and data connected with the concession of the Beauharnois canal. I would like to have these as soon as possible.


THE RECIPROCITY AGREEMENT.
George Eulas Foster: Before the orders of the day aje called, I would like to call the attention of the Finance Minister to the message sent by President Taft in reply to a request from the Senate, in which statistics are given as to the different items affected by the schedule in the agreement now under discussion. These statistics include the prices of various commodities such as beef,1


John Waterhouse Daniel: pork, butter, &c., in Canada and the United States for a series of years, and especially for the last year. In reply to the request the President sent down a list which gave the exact information required by the Senate. During this discussion each one of us has had his own trouble in finding out what the prices were in the two countries. 1 would like to ask the hon. minister if he has prepared, as no doubt he has, this statistical data, especially as regards the prices in the two countries, and if he will lay the information on the table. It is absolutely important that we should have it if we are to properly understand what we are doing, and I do not see why this House should not have it as well as the United States Senate and Congress.


William Stevens Fielding: I understand the hon. gentleman refers to some statistics moved for in the United States Congress and in due course brought down. Of course we have no access to these any more than my hon. friend has himself. I presume they are now United States official documents which in due course will reach us, but we have no information in reference to them more than he has, that is what is in the public press. As to any such comparison on this side, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. FisheT) gave extended comparisons and was willing to give more but objection was taken. I presume we could still have them.


George Eulas Foster: What I want is not what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) or any other minister collates, but the absolute certainty which was used by the government in the negotiations and which we ought to have in order to form our opinions' properly with reference to the measure.


William Stevens Fielding: Of course we had to use our own sources of information and hon. gentlemen who criticise the agreement will have to do likewise. We will be happy to give the hon. gentleman any documents. The particular class of information he desires was spoken of by the Minister of Agriculture, a member of the government and he desired to put it on * Hansard but objection was taken, otherwise it would be now in the possession of my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: It does not seem that that answers my question. There are certain rules of debate, one is that we cannot hand in a statement and have it published without reading it, but surely the government itself ought to lay on the table of the House for the information of all members of the House these statistics to aid towards forming a good judgment. For instance what are the prices of pork, wheat and these other commodities in these other countries? On that depends the argument pro or con, and as it is we have simply

been bandying statements one with the other. In the United States the government brings down authentic data. ,


William Stevens Fielding: There is a generally understood rule that one cannot put on ' Hansard ' anything that is not read, but that rule is violated frequently and by no one more frequently than the hon.* member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who very frequently asks that some statement he has in his hand should be included in 'Hansard'; and I do not think objection has ever been taken, so that rule should hardly have been cited to prevent the Minister of Agriculture from giving information.


George Eulas Foster: Since the minister has brought that up I challenge him-


Mr. SPEAKER.: I am afraid I cannot allow a discussion at this point. Perhaps in going into Supply-


George Eulas Foster: Then may I correct a statement by the minister? He says I have frequently asked to have statements which I have not read inserted in ' Hansard '. I deny that and I challenge proof.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the matter of sufficient importance to either my hon. friend or myself that we should worry about it, but I am speaking from memory. I have read statements partly din the House and by common consent had them placed in ' Hansard ' and my recollection is that the hon. gentleman has done likewise. If he says not I leave the House to consider it and I shall not trouble to hunt through ' Hansard


George Eulas Foster: But will you bring down the statement?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Agriculture, now that it has beeni desired, will give that valuable information which he tried to give the other night but was prevented.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Does the Prime Minister propose to go on with the debate on the reciprocity proposal to-morrow or to go into Supply?


Wilfrid Laurier: We will take Supply to-morrow.



WAYS AND MEANS-VENTILATION OF GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means.
['I may say that the matter of taking care of the departmental buildings does not rest with my department, but with the Department of Finance, which, under a curious rule, which has been in existence, I suppose, ever since confederation, employs the charwomen who look after the departmental buildings. Some time ago I gave directions that the water to be supplied should be sterilized, and asked my deputy minister to have a conference with the Deputy Minister of Finance on the subject. I will inquire whether the necessary steps have been taken to furnish sterilized water in the different departmental buildings.']
Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants).: Before going into committee, I wish to speak on a subject of great importance, the sanitary condition of this chamber, of the rooms provided for the members of this House and the rooms that are provided for the different departmental offices. This is an old
subject I know, it has been brought up in this House every session since I have been here and very little has been done in the way of improvement. I notice that there is more air coming into this House-I do not mean hot air, but there is more cold air coming into this House than there was four or five years ago, but we are far from proper conditions, and from the conditions to which we are entitled. We are obliged to sit in this room from 3 o'clock till 6 and again from 8 o'clock to anywhere towards morning. Before sitting in this room most of us go into committee rooms which are worse than this room. We sit for ten or twelve hours a day in rooms in which there is not sufficient fresh air to keep a man in good health. This room has never had a ray of sunlight cast into it since it was built in 1867, I presume for the stained glass was there then and is there now. Any one who has studied the necessity of sunlight to human health must know that we are suffering from this room not being purified by sunlight. Sunlight is the great microbe killer, microbes have been gathering in this room ever since confederation and no sunlight has ever come in to purify it. I am not joking, this is far too serious a matter for any of us to joke about. Younger men may stand this, but the older members will agree with me in saying that they never go home in as good health as they come up here in the autumn. I hate to allude to a personal matter but for myself I break down before the term is over every session. I do not know that the sunlight can be properly let into this room but if it cannot let us get a room somewhere else where it can. A man may have to sacrifice his business, sacrifice his financial affairs for the service to his country, but the day of human sacrifice has gone long ago and I do not think we should sacrifice our lives or our health for the benefit of our country. For one I am not prepared to do it if it can be avoided.
The committee rooms in which we are obliged to work are in a far worse condition than this room. It any one will go say 25 minutes late into the committee rooms, No. 30, No. 32, and No. 34 and pause a moment at the door, he will find that the condition of the air can only be expressed by one word-and I do not wish to use slang-that is the word rotten. In 20 minutes those rooms are foul, too foul for men to remain in and yet we have to remain there a couple of hours. There is no system of proper ventilation. In the addition built to this building and occupied in the autumn of 1908, we had some hope that some modern sanitary engineer would have had some supervision in the matter of providing fresh air for the members there, but the provision in those rooms is worse than in the older rooms, there is no pro-

vision at all. There is more attention paid to fresh air in the wigwam of a wild Indian than there is in any of these rooms. I do my work in No. 76, which is a fair sample of other rooms. When I arrived in it in autumn of 1908 it had a double window, and the fanlight over the door was closed up, closed forever, I suppose. The room was hermetically sealed, and four men were expected to breath that air over and over again for hours in the day, and in the night. Any member who has gone to the different departments, as most of us on this side of the House are forced to do that disagreable work, must have noticed that there is no improvement there either. Now these are very serious matters affecting our health, and though we talk of them year after year, nothing is done. I would respectfully suggest to the government that these buildings be put under the supervision and care of a sanitary engineer, who shall make the necessary changes, and put the buildings in a first-class condition, such as is required by the up to date knowledge of the laws of health. It may cost a little money, but there is no reason why it should not be done.
Another fault I have to find is that this House in all parts of it is overheated, fuel is wasted1 to the detriment of our health. There is no thermometer in any room I know of occupied by a member of the House; if other hon. gentlemen have one in their room, they have the advantage over me and those who occupy the same room with me. There should be a thermometer in every room, and proper ventilation should be established. In asking for these things I do not think we are asking for more than we are entitled to. -
Now, while I am on my feet, I wish to say a few words about the typhoid epidemic in Ottawa, and about what I consider is the duty of the government in respect thereto. The government, I think, is the largest purchaser of drinking "water in the city of Ottawa. I have been given to understand that there axe between 3,000 and 4,000 people living in Ottawa who are employed by the government in its- various services; no doubt, including the members of parliament and the civil service, there must be a.s many as 4,000; but I speak subject to correction. I say that these people should have a supply of wholesome water. We are now drinking boiled water in some of the departments. There is no reason why this government, interested as it is in the water supply of Ottawa, should not demand that a supply of pure drinking water be furnished to all connected with the government. There i.s another reason why the government should interfere in connection with this typhoid epidemic, and that is because the city council of Ottawa Mr. BLACK.
has established beyond doubt its incapacity to cope with this matter. For two years and more, and I lay stress on the ' more,' the water of Ottawa has been con-'taminaited. Sample after sample has been histedi land1 has Ibsen, found to contain typhoid baccilli. If there were any doubt where the contamination originated, if there were any doubt that there is poison in the water, it would be another question. But we know two things fox certain: First, that the people of Ottawa are being poisoned, secondly, we know where the poison comes from. Now what has been done to stop the source of supply of this poison? A scientific man comes along any says: If you will take water from some other place where the water is still, the poison will settle down at the bottom and you won't get much of it. Another s-ays: If you put hypochloride of lime in the water it will kill many of these poisonous germs. That is what I call tinkering with a very serious matteT. If it were a matter that merely affected our convenience or our comfort, it would be far less serious, but this is a matter that affects our health and our lives. I maintain that the city council of Ottawa have failed for two years ot more to take any steps to prevent the poisoning of the people. As I have said, the government is one of the largest purchasers of drinking water, and contributes a large amount of money to pay for it, therefore I contend that the government are justified in taking a hand in this matter iand seeing that we are supplied with pure water.
There is another thing I want to mention besides the water, and that is the ice that is supplied us. I have been assured in our dining-room upstairs that the water has been boiled while the waiter puts ice in the water, which of course has not been boiled. But the health officer comforts us with the assurance which I have seen in a paper, and I was astonished to read it, that this ice is perfectly pure, and that we may safely put it in our drinking water. Now I would be loath to set up my opinion against that of the medical health officer of Ottawa, or the health officer for the province of Ontario, or any other gentleman who is a specialist in that matter, though I have given some years of time and some study to the question of public health and sanitation. On this subject of the pollution of ice, I have in my hand one of the best authors on sanitation in the world, Sedgwick, from whom I ask permission to quote a few words:



[Stage Direction]
The processes of harvesting natural ice, and of delivering it to the consumer, still leave much to be desired. The use of horses whose droppings fall on the ice during the ' ploughing ' or cutting of the ice-fields; the un-

cleanly habits of the workmen employed; the floating of the blocks through less pure, or actually polluted water, on their way to the ice-houses; their storage, often in a packing of old and dirty hay or sawdust; and their final deliverey into family, club or hotel refrigerators by common workmen after only hasty brushing with some ancient cloth or broom,-these conditions illustrate the need of improvement.
There are a great many reasons why ice taken from Nepean bay is not fit for use. In the first place, Nepean bay is the spot where it is estimated most of the poison lies. Water, in freezing, of course, precipitates a large percentage of the bacilli. The ice is purer than the water but un.der certain conditions the bacilli cannot all be removed by the freezing process. For instance, we will take Nepean bay-
Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


An hon. MEMBER.: Do not mind them.


Judson Burpee Black: I am not minding them; I notice that some of them know more about whisky than they do about water. In the process of freezing a large percentage of the bacilli is precipitated. It was at Cave creek at Mechanicsville that some of the water flowed over the ice from Mechanicsville, and in that way the ice was contaminated. As a result of raising the water by stop logs the water overflowed the ice, then it froze on the ice and there was no possible way that there could be any bacilli precipitated at all, but it froze in and on the ice. Over this ice horses are travelling hauling logs,' and men are working. I believe the government is storing some of this ice down at government house and next winter when we go down there to dine with the Duke of Connaught, we will be asked to drink water chilled with Nepean bay impure ice.
There seems to he one short piece of cure-all advice given to the people-boil the water. I have read these three words in every town in which there has been typhoid. Many people have taken typhoid by following that rule-boil the water. Boil the water you drink! I say boil the water you drink, boil the water you clean your teeth wtith, be sure to have the water boiled that the dishes are washed in, and boil the milk pitcher every time. I suppose there are many people in Ottawa who have been following that short direction to boil the water that they are drinking and neglecting to boil it for anything else. The consequence is that some of them have taken typhoid out of their porridge plate which has never been washed in boiled water.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


Judson Burpee Black: Yes, it will be carried in time. Now, Mr. Speaker, we are not only
guilty of standing idly by and not preventing our own water from being poisoned, but we are sending the poison down to our neighbours. Ottawa is polluting the drinking water of Rockland, while Aylmer and Mechanicsville are polluting the water that we drink. It is time that some intelligent process was adopted to stop the drinking of poisoned water. Science shows where it has been done and is being done, but the process of dumping sewage into our drinking water is too barbarous for intelligent people to put up with. Ottawa is one of the most beautiful cities in Canada, and you will pardon me if I say one of the most unhealthy cities.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


Judson Burpee Black: That gentleman that drinks whisky still wants it carried. The government is contributing a large amount of money every year to beautify the city, and is beautifying it. Now, I think that in the ordinary way of common sense the government should contribute to the health of the city. I have some figures here which will probably astonish some of us. In the city of Ottawa there were born last year, to the 31st October, 1910, 2,100 children. Ninety per cent of those should have lived. Of those born 626 died, or nearly 32 per cent of all the children born in Ottawa up to that date died. This is the highest rate of mortality among infants in any city in the world where statistics are kept. So much for the conditions.
Now, I would beg leave respectfully to make another suggestion; that is that the government which contributes so much to the city of Ottawa, should appoint either a properly qualified officer of public health, or .a commission, to assist the city of Ottawa in providing proper water for its citizens. If the city refuses such assistance withdraw the amount which is being paid to it for the beautifying of Ottawa. That is conservation, I think, of a most important type -the conservation of the lives and health of our people.
Before I sit down I want to say one thing more. I want to say that if the government had done what I think they should have done they would have formed a bureau of public health some years ago whose duty it would have been to have enlightened the people in such a way that * they would avoid all these useless and needless epidemics. It is either ignorance or carelessness-usually both-that allows such epidemics to begin. If our people were properly educated, if the council of Ottawa, or the council of Montreal had had sufficient education with regard to the laws of health and in the proper way of preventing epidemics in their cities we would not have 1,400 cases of typhoid in the city of Ottawa to-day. I am told by a citizen who

knows that there are at least that many in the town although there are only 800 or 900 cases reported. Of course we may be told, as I have been told, that public health belongs to the provinces, that we should not interfere, and that there are grave difficulties in the way. I know there are difficulties in the way of every reform, and I know there are lions in the way in every path we do not wish to follow, and the sons of Anak live in every country we do not want to go into. But if we consider it the duty of the government to conserve the health of the people as well as to conserve the resources of our forests and our water-powers these difficulties will be swept aside and there will be spread among the pe'opie knowledge of how to live and how to do away with the useless and sad amount of sickness there is in Canada. We have medical officials enough under the government; you run across them in nearly every department. There is one in the Department of Agriculture, one in the Immigration Department, one in the Marine Department, one in the Bailway Department and probably others.


Mr. TALBOT.: One in the Militia Department.


Judson Burpee Black: There are several in the Militia Department ; they are as thick as bees there. I believe that all these scattered forces should be brought together, and a central bureau of public health established, which, if it distributed literature bearing on the subject would result in great benefit to the people at large. I repeat that there should be a sanitary engineer to take charge of the sanitary condition of these buildings, and, I believe that the government should assist in measures to put down this epidemic of typhoid and to prevent its ever recurring in Ottawa.


Mr. SPBOULE.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Black) has pointed out that the committee rooms are in a very unsanitary condition, and that has been known to us for years past. But, something might be done by the members themselves to improve the conditions. I have often experienced a good deal of discomfort as others have, I have no doubt, because of the unfortunate habit which many members have of smoking in the room. To begin with the ventilation is not good, and before you are long in the room it is much like a place where they smoke meat. This habit is not businesslike, it is not courteous to others, and it does not contribute to health. It seems to me that some one who is responsible for it should have an understanding that smoking would be stopped m the committee rooms in future. As to the water supply, it seems to me that in view of the large sum of money the government is paying for water supplied to the government build-Mr. BLACK.
ings we should at least have some better method of determining what kind of water we are drinking. The government have their own chemists, analysts and bacteriologists, and why do they not from time to time have the water tested? The government might even go further, and, adopting the suggestion of the hon. member (Mr. Black) join with the health authorities of the city in ascertaining the source of pollution and adopting means to secure pure water. I do not think the government will be doing its full duty unless it does that.


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works).: I have no doubt that the House and the. citizens of Ottawa will appreciate the action of the hon. member for Hants (Mr. Black) in bringing this matter to our attention. His remarks will no doubt be published, and I trust they will receive careful consideration from the municipal authorities. The hon. member for East Grey '(Mr. Sproule) is disposed to think that the government has omitted to do its duty but I do not think we can do more than we have done. At the request of my department the water has been analyzed by experts.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How often?


William Pugsley: Often enough to know that it is of a very suspicious character, and that it contains matter which is likely to be detrimental to the public health. The evidence we have is sufficient to satisfy us that no man, woman or child is safe in drinking the crude water from the Ottawa river, and that the only safe thing is to have it boiled or sterilized. We are furnishing sterilized water for the members of this House and the employees in this building. I have given directions to have that water analyzed from week to week, and the report we have is that the bacilli have been destroyed and that it is safe to drink it. But no weter from the river Ottawa can safely be drunk unless it is either boiled or sterilized. My hon. friend from Hants (Mr. Black) has said that water cannot be made safe by boiling it.


Judson Burpee Black: I beg your pardon, I did not say that.


William Pugsley: I misunderstood my honourable friend, the late Dr. Bayard,
one of the most eminent physicians in Canada, who resided in St. John, was of the opinion that water otherwise unsafe would be rendered safe by boiling, and he made it a practice to boil the water he used and to advise his patients to do likewise. I should think that the only thing for the city of Ottawa to do is to obtain its water supply from a different source, and the only safe source I would suppose would be found in the mountainous district in the vicinity of the Gatineau. I am told there are opportunities there for obtaining

an abundant supply of the purest water. Speaking for my department as representing the government, and having charge of this matter, I would be most happy to cooperate in any way possible in inducing the authorities of the city of Ottawa to proceed towards obtaining a supply from that source. The only thing that we can do is to agree on the amount that we would pay for an annual supply. It is our duty to obtain a safe supply for the members of parliament and the employees of the government, and the only way to obtain it is to have the water brought from a different source. I trust that the council of the city of Ottawa will move along in the direction which I am told they are contemplating, and will soon take steps to obtain a supply from that source.
With regard to the ventilation of this chamber, I want to express my disagreement entirely with the statement of my hon. friend from Hants. 1 think this chamber is well ventilated when the fans are being operated. There are sometimes hundreds of people sitting on this floor and in the gallery, and my experience of other rooms which have been filled with people compared with this chamber is that the atmosphere here is very good. With regard to the committee rooms, there is no doubt that if a modern system of ventilation had been installed when the building was erected it would have been better. It is difficult, after a building has been constructed, to install a proper system of ventilation. I have asked the chief architect to do everything possible to improve the ventilation, and I will make it my business to convey to him the suggestions of my hon. friend, which I believe are valuable.


Judson Burpee Black: May I ask why there was no attempt made to ventilate the new building that was finished in 1908?


William Pugsley: I may say that the new building, with the exception of finishing the interior, was built before I became minister. I had nothing to do with the pians for it, and, therefore, at this moment I do not know why it was that the chief architect did not design a modern system of ventilation for those rooms.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: I am very much in sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. member for Hants. I understood him to say that the water which the members and employees in this building have been drinking has been made as pure as it can possibly be made, but I would like to ask the minister whether it is true, as reported, that in all the departments of this government the employees are compelled to drink the ordinary tap water. If that is the case, I think it is high time, under the conditions at present existing in Ottawa, that the government took some steps towards remedying that state of things.


William Pugsley: I may say that the matter of taking care of the departmental buildings does not rest with my department, but with the Department of Finance, which, under a curious rule, which has been in existence, I suppose, ever since confederation, employs the charwomen who look after the departmental buildings. Some time ago I gave directions that the water to be supplied should be sterilized, and asked my deputy minister to have a conference with the Deputy Minister of Finance on the subject. I will inquire whether the necessary steps have been taken to furnish sterilized water in the different departmental buildings.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Ways and Means.

["Well, St. Mary's bay is outside of that line; it is almost 100 miles outside. The hon. minister said that we- that is, I presume, those who had charge of Britain's case-were undertaking a very great job in trying to get The Hague Tribunal to recognize our doctrine in regard to bays, and intimated in this House and in the discussion of this matter outside of the House, that some great and new principle of international law had been announced. Why, Sir, the method to be pursued in measuring bays and headlands laid down by this tribunal is as old as Grotius, one of the oldest authorities on international law. The hon. minister asks, wherein is it there is a dereliction of duty on the part of the government in connection with this matter, and, in answer to the hon. member for Digby, who wishes to know what our rights in the Bay of Fundy were, he said they were exactly what they were before the agreement of the 27th of January was signed, no more and no less. No one could answer a question more unsatisfactorily. What does he concede to be our rights in the Bay of Fundy under the treaty of 1818? What effect does he think this correspondence of 1845 had with regard to our rights, in the light of the claims subsequently made by this parliament, which have never been successfully refuted by the people of the United States? It was of the greatest importance to the people of this country that this question should have been determined by this tribunal when it sat last summer. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Digby, the treaty of' 1908, by which these matters were to be adjusted, is to remain in force only five years. Two", "years from next June it will expire. Does the minister hope to get the difficulties with respect to the Bay of Fundy settled before that time? I submit that he was guilty of a dereliction of duty in connection with this matter when he permitted the Bay of Fundy to be excepted at all. The Senate of the United States had no right to put a rider on the agreement excepting it, because article 1 of the treaty of 1908, which had been concurred in by the Senate of the United States, expressly stipulated for the adjudication of just such disputes as have been continually arising with regard to Canadian-British rights in the Bay of Fundy, and it was the duty of the minister to have pointed out to the United States ministers the terms of that treaty, and that, in adding to the agreement the rider excepting from the adjudication of the tribunal a disputed question under the treaty of 1818, they were violating the treaty of 1908, which they themselves had ratified. The question of fishing in the Bay of Fundy is one which is important to the people of the whole Dominion of Canada, but more especially to those people who inhabit the shores along the bay in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Bay of Fundy every year produces in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 worth of fish to Canadian fishermen. When we estimate the number of fishermen from the United States who trawl these waters and fish them from one end of the year to the other, and in violation of the Canadian fishery regulations, we may fairly estimate that the Bay of Fundy, from the headlands claimed by the British authorities, yields up each year $2,000,000 worth of fish, and when the minister stood by and neglected to have the question of the right to fish in that great and valuable fishery go before the tribunal he was guilty of a dereliction of duty. I want to point out to him that, square mile for square mile the Bay of Fundy, within a line drawn from Briar Island to Grand Manan, is richer than the richest belt of soil between the lakes and the Rocky mountains, and he might just as well have ceded up an equal area of the prairie provinces to the United States as to have permitted their people to come in and enjoy in common with us the right to exploit those fisheries, which, as a matter of fairness and equity, belong to the people of His Majesty's dominions. The minister thinks that, perhaps, if he had insisted on including the Bay of Fundy in the question submitted to this tribunal he might have prejudiced the Canadian case. In fact, he expressed his pride that he himself was the one to suggest that the Bay of Fundy should be struck out. I can hardly see how he can reconcile the wish he expressed to-night with the statement he made in this House on the 2nd of De-Mr. MADDIN.\ncember, -when he said that had the question of the Bay of Fundy been submitted to the tribunal, no doubt it would have been declared to be British territorial waters. I s'ubmit that, as the Minister of Justice of this country charged with safeguarding the interests of Canada, it was his duty, even if we had only a substantial colour of right, to have submitted that question of right for the consideration and adjudication of that tribunal. How have the United States, in their negotiation with us in the past, dealt with their claims? Have they considered their claims from time to time to be shadowy? Do we not know that, after promising to admit our fish free into the United States, they imposed a duty and then pretended that it was on the tin boxes that contained the fish, and not on the fish? Do we not remember how, on another occasion, they placed a tax on the tonnage of the vessels passing through their canals, and then claimed that it was aimed at the cargoes and not at the vessels? If the minister will take a lesson from a writer on international law, he will find in ' Blackwood's Magazine ' for October, 1893, an article on ' The United States in International Law/ in which it is said:\nFurther, the United States in consistent pursuance of the older view of international law, have shown a remarkable tendency to assert the very oldest titles and claims that the prehistoric view of law would support by the most shadowy interpretation.\n(a)\tThus -the right of the United States to the navigation of the Mississippi, as against the claims of Spain, were based on the rights obtained through France by the voyage and discoveries of La Salle, as well as upon ' the sentiment written in deep characters upon the heart of man/ i.e., the law of nature as understood in America.\n(b)\tThus the right to navigate the St. Lawrence as against the territorial authority of Great Britain, was based upon r natural law and obvious necessity,' not admissible grounds in diplomatic negotiations.\n(c)\tThus the claims of the United States to the Oregon territory were based on the shadowy claims of Spain, themselves based on papal bulls, and those of doubtful authority in view of previous bulls to Portugal.\n(d)\tThus the right of America to Texas is also based on the traditional landing of Lasalle at the Bay of Esperitu Santo.\n(e)\tThus the claims of the American fishermen to use the British fisheries in North America was based on the previous condition of citizenship of the British Empire, from which they had deliberately- cut themselves adrift.\n(f)\tThus the American claim to jurisdiction on Behring Sea was based on claims which Russia had put forward for quite other purposes than the prosecution of the seal fisheries, which had been repudiated by the United States at the time, ^ but which were resuscitated when the Americans became possessed of the Russian territory.", "Thus we find the United States ready to blow hot and cold in matters that involve international rights. And I submit that by all the rights of international law- and if the hour were not so late I would take up some of the authorities from Gro-tius down to the present-the doctrine of the headland rights has been recognized. The tribunal which recently rendered its decision of this matter certainly dealt a very vigorous blow to the party which boasts so exulting'ly of the diplomacy of the hon. minister because, in referring to clause 5 of the argument of the United States regarding question 5, the tribunal finds as follows:\nIn this latter regard it is further contended by the United States that such exceptions only should be made from the application of the three-mile rule to bays as are sanctioned by conventions and established usage.\nThat would apply to the Bay of Fundy.\nThat all exceptions for which the United States of America were responsible are so sanctioned; and that His Majesty's government are unable to provide evidence to show that the bays concerned by the treaty of 1818 could be claimed as exceptions on these grounds either generally, or except possibly in one or two cases specifically.\nThe award goes on to say:\nBut the tribunal while recognizing that conventions and established usage might be considered as the basis for claiming as territorial those bays which on this ground might be called historic bays, and that such claim should be held valid in the absence of any principle of international law on the subject, nevertheless is unable to apply this, a con-trario, so as to subject the bays in question to the three-mile rule, as desired by the United States;\n(b) Because neither should such relaxations of this claim, as are in evidence, be construed as renunciations of it; nor should omissions to enforce the claim in regard to bays as to which no controversy arose, be so construed. Such a construction by this tribunal would not only be intrinsically inequitable but internationally injurious; in that it would discourage conciliatory diplomatic transactions and encourage the assertion of extreme claims in their fullest extent.\nI submit that the relaxation contained in Lord Aberdeen's letter of the 10th . March, 1845, cannot be construed as running perpetually. It has since been renounced by Great Britain and by this^ parliament with the acquiescence of Britain, when the late Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice. It seems to me that this decree expresses a principle from which it will be very awkward indeed for any future tribunal to exclude the Bay of Fundy from being declared British territorial waters. Our difficulty, however,_ is that there is no possible prospect of having the rights of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick insisted upon by this government. If the waters of the Bay of Fundy are British territorial waters, we should make fishing regulations with regard to them. We can control these fisheries, we can preserve and enrich them, we can also exclude all other people than His Britannic Majesty's subjects from the right to fish within these waters. In view of the regulation of these fisheries, the matter is sufficiently important to warrant the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in insisting on a speedy determination of our rights with regard to this -important bay.\nMy hon. friend from Digby is not the only person in Nova Scotia anxious to get some information with regard to our rights. In the Morning ' Chronicle ' of January 17, there is an article under a two-column heading in letter^ of three-quarters of an inch long, entitled ' Steam Trawling in the Bay of Fundy.' That article is as follows :\t,\n(Special to the ' Morning Chronicle.')\nOttawa, Jan. 17.-The Department of Marine has asked the Justice Department for an opinion as to whether under the terms of the award of the Hague Tribunal which dealt with the North Atlantic fisheries case, the Bay of Fundy should be considered as territorial waters from which Canada can exclude fishermen of foreign countries.\nIn a letter setting forth the facts of the case, Mr. Alexander Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, wrote to Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, on November 4 last, pointing out that the Fisheries Department was anxious to regulate steam trawling in the Bay of Fundy and other coast waters, but unless the government had authority to shut out American _ or other foreign trawlers, it would not be wise to make regulations prohibiting steam trawling in the bay by Canadian fishermen.\nMr. Johnston pointed out that up to 1853 Canada had asserted its right to control the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy and to regard it as a closed sea. In pursuance of this right an American fishing vessel named the ' Washington ' had been seized when fishing in the bay six miles off the coast. By the treaty concluded in 1853 between Great Britain and the United States, the question as to the right of Canada to thus seize the vessel was submitted to the adjudication of an umpire jointly chosen by the American and British governments. This umpire was a Mr. Bates, who was a junior member of a United States banking firm in England. His decision was that the bay could not be considered as territorial waters, and under his award Canada was compelled to pay damages for the seizure of the vessel.\nMr. Johnston urges that this decision should not be considered as final, inasmuch as it was more particularly concerned with a pecuniary claim, and inasmuch as the recent Hague decision seems to lay down the general principle that the' coast line should run from headland to headland. The Bay of Fundy was", u'expressly excluded from tlie consideration of the tribunal at the Hague, and beyond the general principle of law laid down, and its application, the cases of individual bays in Newfoundland and Canadian waters, there has been no specific determination of the point now raised beyond the above noted award in 1853.\t...\t,\nAnother important point raised is that the award does not clearly indicate whether Canada has a right to exclude from territorial waters vessels of other countries than those which were parties to the treaty of 1818.\nHere we have the Deputy Minister of Marine intellectually at sea, he wants to know, just as my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) did, what are the British rights in the Bay of Fundy. My hon. friend, the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) suggested that the member for Digby should read the oral argument with reference to this case, and that if he did, he would find in it a great deal of enlightenment. Well, I should like to venture the observation, that my hon. friend from Digby has read perhaps more of the oral argument in connection with this\' award, and perhaps more of the appendices to the argument and the case, and the counter case than even the Minister of Justice himself. While certain great newspapers in this Dominion have been giving to the Minister of Justice great praise, in connection with this decree, handed down at the Hague Tribunal last year, I am not so sure that, even on his own declaration and confession, he is entitled to all the bouquets that have been handed to him by the press supporting this government. When a press despatch announced, early in the year, Shat the minister was to be dubbed a knight, there was some doubt in the minds of the people of Nova Scotia whether this was due to his active promotion of that great national waterway, the Newmarket canal, or for his forensic arguments- before the Tribunal at the Hague. On his own admission, supplemented by the letter published by Mr. John\nS.\tEwart, who had charge of getting up this case, I think it can hardly be based on his services rendered in connection with the Hague award. I propose to read this letter of Mr. Ewart as it was published in the Montreal \' Gazette,\' of January 9, 1911:\nThe Editor of the \' Gazette.\'\nSir,-I have several times felt impelled to write correction of the frequently recurring statements of the newspapers with reference to the preparation and presentation of the ease in connection with the recent fisheries arbitration. Till now I have refrained because of the unpleasantness of the task, and because its performance would necessarily leave me open to disagreeable reflection. T am at length convinced that I must face all that.\nThe Canadian newspapers credit Sir Allen Aylesworth with the preparation and presen-t"tion of the case. The Ottawa \'Citizen\' for Mr. MADDIN.\nexample said that the bulk of the work of preparation of the case fell on his shoulders and the wonderfully thorough presentation of the argument was the talk of the nation for some time. The \' Montreal Star\' said that Sir Allen\'s masterly presentation before the Hague Tribunal won him international reputation. Other newspapers use similar language.\nSir Allen made generous answer to previous statements similar to these in his address be fore the Canadian Club at Ottawa. He said:\nYou will naturally ask me to what I attribute our success. I say in the first place, we succeeded because we had a just and good case. In the next place our success is due to excellent preparation, and I say that with the more freedom because notwithstanding the kind words of your president and any personal part I had in it, I give to you as the man entitled to the credit for the excellent preparation of onr case Mr. John S. Ewart. Mr. Ewart took charge of this work fully two years ago and he has worked at it faithfully day and night from that day to this.\nThe result was that when we reached the Hague last June and throughout the proceedings in the case we found Mr. Ewart to bo the man who practically knew more about this case than any other person concerned in it: we found him one to whom upon every occasion of need we could go for information with the full assurance that our desires would be gratified. I give to him first and to Mr. Tilley second the credit for the magnificent preparation which this case had at their hands.\nHad Sir Allen been more familiar with the actual work he would not have omitted the name of Mr. Wormwith. Mr. Tilley did good work. His devoted and energetic services well merit encomium. But with a little help save that supplied by Mr. Wormwith the research work was almost finished, and the whole of the argument drafted, before Mr. Tilley\'s connection with the case commenced.\nThe fact is that Sir Allen not\' only was quite inactive with reference to the preparation of the case, -but that he sedulously kept himself apart from it. He never inquired what was being done. Until after almost the whole of tho research had been completed and the arguments had been drafted (nineteen months work) he and I had no conversation other than of the most general character about it. Prom the commencement of the work until the last word had been spoken at the Hague I can recall but one point which he and I discussed and that was only partially canvassed. Sir Allen never read a word of the hundreds of documents contained in over 1,200 folio pages of small type which contained the result of the research until after the whole of it was ill print and had been delivered to the United Slf.tes. Most probably he has not read a twentieth of it. That was not his part of the work and most properly he did not do it.\nAll that need be said about the \' masterly presentation \' before the tribunal is that Sir .Allen was a spectator and not a debater there. He did not even attend the daily conferences of counsel which were held at the close of each day\'s session when the happenings of the day were discussed and the plan for the next day arranged. That too was not his part of the work and most properly he did not do it.\n\nOwing to lack of familiarity with the preparation of the case Sir Allen inadvertently in his speech in the House of Commons, gave Sir William Robson a little more than his due. About this I must be permitted a few words: Sir Allen said that Sir William referred to certain treaties in support of an original argument upon the question of \'bays\' and that the argument \' was due altogether to the research and ability of Sir William Robson.\' Taking this statement as a very serious reflection upon my work, I spoke to Sir Allen about it. I pointed out to him that the treaties were cited and an argument upon them not very dissimilar to that of Sir William\'s presented in my \' memorandum of facts and arguments \' which has \'been prepared before I left Canada and before I knew of the existence of Sir William; that the treaties were all printed in the appendix to our case and delivered to the United States months before Sir William began his study of the case; and that in my address to the\'tribunal (which preceded that of Sir William), I had called attention to the treaties and based another argument upon them. Sir Allen was good enough to express regret at having been unaware that the research had not been done by Sir William. Sir William made a splendid address before the tribunal. Too much cannot bo said in its praise. But quite naturally he did no research work.\nTurning now to the work which Sir Allen did, let me say that it was of the very highest importance; that it was extremely well done-and that it amply entitled him to the gratitude of Canada. His official position precluded monetary remuneration. His knighthood is (ii he values it) a most fitting reward for ..ls w\xb0rk. He has already more than earned i- by his splendid support of Canada\'s in-terests_ against the treachery of Lord Alver-stone m the Alaska boundary ease.\nSir Allen\'s work related to the negotiations with the United States which led up to the arbitration; to agreement upon the form of the questions to be submitted (a form which he never had reason to regret) to the .selection or the arbitrators (a most important point)-tj the arrangements with Newfoundland to the settlement of all the difficulties which aic-sei in so many unexpected ways during the three years which elapsed between the inception and the completion of the work. His too was the official responsibility for all that was done and for the selection of the men to do it. Had we failed him, he would have got the blame, and so far as I am oon-cerned Mr. George Foster would have been able to say:\tI told you so.\'\nNo one knows better than I do the difficulties which Sir Allen had to encounter and with what patience, tact and ability he met them and dissipated them. Personally I feel myself under deep gratitude to him not only for the implicit confidence which he placed in me but for the great consideration and kindness which he evinced at some very critical junctures.\nI trust that for this letter I may be forgiven. I should rather untlianked, work up another fisheries case than write such a letter.']
Mr. W. M. GERMAN (Welland).: Mr. Speaker, I am free to say that I rise with considerable diffidence to address this committee on the very imnortant question which is before us for consideration. I feel somewhat diffident, in the first place, by reason of the fact that what I propose to do in connection with this resolution is at variance with the views of those people with whom I have always been associated politically, and, in the second place, I feel that it is impossible for me to approach, much less reach, that high standard of oratory and argument which was set by the member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton), who spoke on this question on Tuesday last. Bpt, Sir, notwithstanding that I feel my inability to discuss this matter with the clearness that I would like, I feel it my duty to my constituents, to the party to which I have always belonged, and to myself, to give my reasons for the course which' I propose to pursue. I apprehend that it will be generally conceded that I have always been a pretty strong party supporter. I might say that politically I was cradled in the lap of Liberalism and nursed on the essence of the ' Globe ' newspaper? and it is rather difficult to get away from the influences of those infantile exercises; but, Sir, it appears to me that this is a question of sufficient importance to make every man in this country stop and consider carefully not only his position politically, but what he should do in the best interest of the country at large, and that, Sir, is my position to-day. I am in rather a peculiar position on this question. I first contested the county of Welland in the interest of the Liberal party for the Dominion parliament in 1891, and as I was elected by a majority of about 500 against

one of the strongest men at that time in the Conservative party, the late Dr. John Ferguson, and was elected on the issue of reciprocal trade with the United States as against the National Policy of the Conservative party, it may be asked why change now? I hope to prove that I am not changing from my position as a supporter of the principles of the Liberal party. In 1891 the policy of the Liberal party was strongly for reciprocity; it was unrestricted reciprocity-commercial union-and why? J am free to say that I did not altogether like the proposition, but it was the party policy; I was the candidate of the party, and I argued as well as I could in favour of that policy. But conditions weTe different then from what they are to-day. At that time business was depressed and everything was stagnant. When the National Policy was inaugurated the cry was sent out that it would be the cause of the erection of tall chimneys and big smoke stacks throughout the land. That was the cry in the county of Welland, which I have had the honour of representing in the local legislature and this House during the last 20 years. That was the cry of Dr. Ferguson and of his predecessor, the late Christopher Bunting, but after 13 or 14 years' experience of that policy, we had no smokestacks, no chimneys, no factories in Welland county, and no home market.


William Paterson: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: And the farmers at that time in that county, Conservatives though they were, were willing to adopt almost any panacea for the evils which then existed, and they approved and supported the then policy of 'the Liberal party, namely, unrestricted reciprocity with the United States. Well, the Liberal party did not succeed in that election. In 1896, however, they did succeed, hut not on that cry of unrestricted reciprocity. That policy was considerably modified. I was interested on Tuesday night to hear the hon. Minister of Agriculture say that personally he was pleased that the Liberal party had not succeeded in 1891. Why he did not feel any degree of satisfaction at the defeat of the Liberal party in 1891 must have been due to the fact that he disapproved entirely of the policy which that party then advocated. Otherwise there could' be no reason for his satisfaction at its defeat. I presume he felt that if his party had succeeded in 1891, it would have been forced to endeavour at any rate to put on our statutes a law which would bring about unrestricted reciprocity, and he did not like to go that far. Nor do I believe that, down in their hearts, the Liberals at that time throughout Canada really wanted to go that far.


William Manley German: 


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, heaT.


William Manley German: In 1896 the Liberal party did succeed, tout happily in that year the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), the Minister of Customs (Mt. Paterson) and the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Sir Richard Cartwright) went throughout the length and breadth of the country gathering information and 'ascertaining the ideas of the business people and of the farmers as to what should be the correct policy to adopt as the fiscal policy of Canada. Having gathered that information intelligently, thoroughly and exhaustively, the Minister of Finance made his budget speech in 1897, and in that speech -declared for moderate protection and a stable tariff. After having listened to all the delegations and deputations that desired to be heard, the government came to parliament and said: We will stand by-if not (the National Policy as then existing-at any rate a modified form of the National Policy-and very little modified at that.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, heaT.


William Manley German: I am here to say that I do not agree altogether with my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) in all his remarks, nor do I agree with the gentleman who preceded me in this debate, in opposition to the resolution, in all they have said. There is one suggestion to which I take particular exception, and that is the suggestion that reciprocity will bring about annexation. I do not believe that, should this agreement come into force, it will either lead to the annexation of Canada to the United States or create any very great sentiment in Canada in that direction. I am a British .subject, but I am dealing constantly with United States citizens, as is nearly eveTy other Canadian. These dealings, however, have never led me to wish to see our country annexed to the United States, and I do not think that I or anybody else has the right to impugn the motives of his fellow-citizens or to- say that because they have dealings with our neighbours across the line that will change their hearts and .alter their allegiance to the British Empire. I believe that loyalty is founded on something more substantial than commercialism and more enduring than dollars -and cents. But having said that, I think I have said about all that can give any consolation to my hon. friends around me.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Manley German: As I have said, the Liberal party, in the first budget speech of my hon. friend -the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), adopted and approved of certainly the policy of protecting our industries. I do not think that the Finance

Minister will deny that. Why, I have heard my hon. friend the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) saying to the Conservatives, in those dulcet tones in which he is accustomed to address the public: Why, you say that we h^ve adopted your policy, but even admitting that we did, we have been able to administer that policy for the benefit of the country, which you were unable to do. That was his plea, and I rather cheered my hon. friend when making it, and I think that the Liberals are entitled to take credit for having administered the fiscal policy of this -country in -such a way as to create the great prosperity we -have had in -the last fourteen years. What- do we find? We find that in 1898 the Finance Minister followed up his statement of 1897 and in 1899 he reiterated it that the policy for Canada must be a protective policy and a stable -tariff. He made that emphatic and strong, and I believe;, Sir,^ that it was the very fact that the, business people of this country found by reason of the statements of -the Finance Minister that the Liberal -party as well as the Conservative party in this country stood by a fair moderate protective tariff and a -stability of tariff that brought about the business conditions we have had here lately. Now, Sir, we find that in 1899 the Prime Minister made a statement in this Ho-use after the reciprocal negotiations had been gone on with at Washington, the Liberal party having carried out the pledge which they had made, and I believe honestly endeavoured to secure reciprocal trade with the United States. They were given the cold shoulder, they were turned from the doors _ of the administration buil-dinjg in Washington, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated m 1899:
If we know the hearts and minds of our people at present, 1 think I am not making too wide a statement when I say that the general feeling in Canada to-day is not in favour of reciprocity. There was a time when Canadians would have given many things * to obtain the American market, there was a time not long ago, when the market of the great cities of the Union was the only market we had for any of our products. But thank Heaven, these days are past and over now. We are not dependent upon the American market as we were at one time. I
I approved of those sentiments, and I will state to the right hon. the Prime Minister that in my opinion the hearts of Liberals throughout the Dominion of Canada throbbed with pride and beat high with expectant hope that from thence on and forever, oar leaders were to be free from all entanglements with the United States. That was emphasized by the Prime Minister at the manufacturers banquet in Montreal in November, 1901. As reported in the Montreal ' Gazette ' he stated that he
would send no more reciprocity delegations to Washington. He said : It is possible they may come to us, if they do, we will teach them the lesson they have taught us, and we shall treat them with all politeness. Sir, I know the right hon. gentleman would treat them with all politeness, but has he taught them the lesson they taught us, namely that they wanted no reciprocal trade relations with them at the present time.
It is said, and some of my friends have told me, that I am deserting my party. Well, Sir, what is a political party? It is an aggregation of men in this country who unite on some principle which they wish to see embodied in law and which they believe will be to the best interests and the best welfare of Canada. That is the policy of the party as enunciated in 1899 and in 1901. In 1900 I resigned my seat in the local legislature at Toronto which I had held for six years, representing the county of Welland, to contest the county of Welland, and to contest it on what? Not Sir, on any reciprocal arrangement with the United 'States, but on the policy as laid down by the Prime Minister that there were to be no more negotiations with Washington. I so informed the people, and I further informed them that I was delighted to stand before them and say that the Liberal view was to look to the British Empire for our inspiration, and not to look to Washington, that we had made an honest effort to secure reciprocity, but that the United States government refused to consider our proposition, and that the Prime Minister and his government had decided finally to abandon all thought of such an arrangement, and to build up a nation on the northern half of this continent, under the aegis of the British flag, with British institutions and with British aspirations, looking to our own home market, Great Britain herself, as the place to which we should send our surplus supplies. Then in 1904, I contested the county of Welland again; not a word of reciprocity. In 1908, the last election, I contested the county again; not a word of reciprocity. It was never mentioned, nobody thought about it, and, what is more, nobody wanted it. Sir, we were progressing with such rapidity, the staple policy which had been introduced and which had been adhered to, was bringing millions of dollars of capital to our shores to build up manufacturing industries in our land. In the county which I have the honour to represent, millions of dollars of United States capital have been expended in building manufactories. The people of the United States, the manufacturers of the United States knew full well that both parties in Canada being then opposed to reciprocity and in favour of a protective policy it-was impossible for them to get the advantage of the great market

which was being built up in this country, and to sell their goods to the vast number of people who were coming here to consume their goods unless they built their factories on Canadian territory, and they have begun to do that. With what result, Sir? With the result that the tall chimneys we used to hear of have been erected, seven or eight million dollars have been expended in the county of Welland in building factories employing thousands of men. a home market has been created, a home market right in my own town of Welland, which is practically as good to the farmers of that county as the market of the city of Buffalo. Poultry, eggs, butter, and nearly everything that the farmer has to sell he can sell on the markets of Welland, St. Catharines, and Niagara Falls, at a price nearly equal to what he can get in Buffalo.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Sometimes better.


William Manley German: And sometimes better. I might say this further. My hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) took two hours on Tuesday to prove to this House and to the country that the Conservative party as well as the Liberal party at one time had endeavoured to secure reciprocity with the United States. He could have told it in one sentence just as emphatically and to just as good advantage as he told it in two hours; because, Sir, everybody knows it, the Conservatives admit it, the Liberals know it. Every one at that time thought that reciprocity between Canada and the United States, in natural products at least, would be a benefit to Canada. But in those days, 40 vears ago, Canada was in swaddling clothes; in those days we thought that, like the infant, perhaps we needed a nursing bottle, and a reciprocity treaty with the United States might be the bottle. But that dav has long gone i>y We have reached in Canada to-day a condition of national manhood; we are to-day in a position to attract the attention of the nations of the earth; we are building up in our own land a great transportation system, we are building up in our own land a great home market, we are building up in our own land large manufacturing establishments to supply, not only our own people, but the people of foreign lands; and I for one, Sir, wili not be a party to jeopardizing, much less destroying, that beneficial condition.
Now let us look at the value of farm lands. In 20 years-and I can speak of my own country with knowledge, because I have lived there all the time, and I have had to do with the farmers intimately- in 20 years farm lands in that country have increased in value from 50 to 60 and 70 per cent. Why? Simply because we have built up this great home market. The farmers can dispose of their products practically at their own doors, selling their goods to fel-Mr. GERMAN.
low Canadians, and spending their money among the merchants of Canada in purchasing the supplies they require. Now, Sir, with all this prosperity, everything going smooth, nobody asking for reciprocity, nobody thinking about it, nobody wanting it, with the sky as clear as the noonday sun, we get this thunderbolt; we get an agreement, I say it advisedly, sprung upon this party without consultation, and on the country without inquiry. When they say, as I know most of them do, that I am leaving my party, then I say that I am standing by the principles of the party, and it is the leaders who are deserting those principles. Now, I think that the Prime Minister should have said to the Washington representatives, treating them with that politeness which he said at the manufacturers5 meeting he would use towards them, I think he should have used towards them the words that he used to the fruit growers of this country: You are too late. It seems to me those words would have been more applicable to the United States representatives than they were to the fruit growers of this country.
Now the Minister of Agriculture said the other night that they had a mandate from the people of this country to enter into this agreement. He rather argued that even if they did not have a mandate, it was not necessary to have one, because, foresooth, they had inaugurated the British preference without any mandate from the people. He prided himself on the fact that the suggestion for a preference towards Great Britain was kept absolutely secret within the bosom of all the ministers, no word or whisper of this preference was allowed to leak outside the doors of the council chamber. Well, Sir, I differ with the Minister of Agriculture; I think this government did have a mandate from the people of Canada to inaugurate the British preference. They had this mandate, that they were to revise the Canadian tariff as it then existed. The people of Canada, whether wisely or unwisely, did decide that the Canadian tariff as it then existed, and had existed for 13 years, should be revised. The government did revise it, and they revised it, as regards goods coming from Great Britain, by reducing the tariff on those goods to a lower rate than the goods coming from all other countries, and it seems to me that to that extent they did have a mandate from the people of Canada to revise the tariff. But, Sir, have they had any on this occasion? Surely not. In every election w=* have had since 1900 there has been no word of reciprocity. As I have already said, no man thought of it, no man wanted it, yet even without a mandate, the government took this step. But supposing they had decided to do it without asking the people for their opinion, surely they might have followed the precedent which they set them-

selves in 1906, and have gone about the country inquiring of the business men how this agreement would affect them. Surely that would have been the part of wisdom on the part of the Finance Minister and his colleagues. The Finance Minister is a gentleman whom I most highly respect, a gentleman I believe who has attained to a greater grasp of the finances of this country, a greater grasp on the confidence of the business men of this country, than any other Finance Minister since confederation. I have admired him exceedingly. But, Sir, I believe he blundered on this occasion. I think he should have ascertained from the business men of the country how they were likely to be affected by this, proposition, whether it would be a good thing for them, he should have ascertained from the farmers to what extent they desired this reciprocity before entering into negotiations. But no, these gentlemen go down to Washington, they enter into this agreement, they come back here and they say to the supporters of the party in this House:	That
is the agreement we have entered into, we want you to support it, and you must support it, or you are not a good party man. Well, Sir, I regret exceedingly that I am in the category of those who are not good party men, but unfortunately I am built that way. If by doing in this matter what I believe to be absolutely right, what I believe the majority of the people of this country believe to be right, takes me out of the category of good party men, then I am not a good party man.
. Mr. FOWKE. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman (Mr. German) if he would not kindly address himself to the question as to how the business interests of Canada will be adversely affected by this proposed arrangement.


William Manley German: Without the suggestion of my hon. friend from Ontario I was just about to tell him what I thought about that question as I have just reached that particular phase of the discussion. Before I proceed with that, however, I wish to say this further. What was the necessity for the great haste in entering into this agreement? The people of the United States had only lately decided that their tariff on goods coming into their country must be reduced. President Taft has told us that this arrangement will reduce the cost of living in the United States and that is his object in entering into it. Could we not well have waited to see what the congress of the United States would do with regard to this matter and if they would not take the duties off our farm produce5 It is quite possible that they would have gone as far as this agreement goes and we could and would have got all the benefits and advantages it would give us in so far as our market in the United States is
concerned without disturbing our own tariff or our own fiscal arrangements at all. It seems to me that it would have been the part of wisdom to have waited, and I think it is the part of wisdom now to wait and see what the United States Congress will do. We will cut a small figure in this country if we rush this proposition through parliament, bind ourselves to it and then find that the extra session of Congress in the United States turns it down. Why can we not wait? We do not need this thing particularly at the present time. There is no reason why we should not wait until another session. If cue United States Congress turns this down and refuses to pass it, as I firmly believe it will, then the matter is ended. Of course, hon. gentlemen may say: Well, if it retuses to pass it then it does no harm; it need not go into force. But, it is on our statute-book and unless repealed it stands there as an offer to the United States at any time in the future that they see fit to pass an Act, no matter what the conditions may be in Canada or how seriously such a thing might affect us. If we pass it and they refuse to carry it out in the United States then we must repeal it or we will be at that serious disadvantage.
My hon. friend from Ontario (Mr. Fowlte) asked me to direct my remarks to the business interests of this country. I might direct him as to that matter to the leading business men of Canada who speak in volume considerably louder and more emphatically than I can, but when we find almost nine-tenths of the leading business men of this country opposed to this proposition where is the man who can stand up frankly and say he believes it will be a good thing for Canada? I cannot for one.


Mr TALBOT.: What about the farmers?


William Manley German: It has been said-it was said in the ' Gazette ' of this morning -that I was to speak to-day from the fruitgrowers' standpoint and that I will * oppose the Fielding instrument wnieh draws a knife across the throat of a thriving native industry.' I do not wish to sail under false colours and I do not wish to be misunderstood. The county of Welland is not what you would call a fruit growing county. There are two townships in the county- Stamford and Pelham-which grow considerable quantities of fruit, but the fruit errowers in these two townships are nearly all staunch Liberals and I fancv that they are in favour of this proposition They crow nothin? like the fruit that is crown in the counties of Lincoln and Wentworth, hut thev crow considerable quantities of fruit, and T know that many of the fruit crowers in these two townshins are in favour of this nronosition. Sneakinc for mvself. from what I know about their

business, I cannot see how the fruit growers can be injuriously affected. I cannot really see, but I am willing to allow the fruit growers to have their opinion about that and to concede that their opinion of the matter is better than mine, and I am convinced that it is equally as good if not better than the opinion of the gentlemen who negotiated this treaty. I think that before an agreement of this kind is entered into and before this agreement passes this parliament their views should be carefully considered as well as the views of all the other producers throughout the Dominion of Canada who are likely to be affected. I think that their views should be given all due careful weight and consideration. But no, the Prime Minister tells them that they are too late, that their views cannot be considered now, no matter how seriously this arrangement may affect them; whatever my views on the matter may be they count for nothing, whatever views they may have on the matter count for nothing; however seriously affected they may be they are too late, they cannot enter now, nothing can be done for them, they must stand the loss however serious it may be. I do not think that is the proper system or principle to adopt. My hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton), the other day, told us all about how it would affect the meat and packing business. I know that the leading men engaged in that business say that it will absolutely put them out of business. I do not know and the Minister of Finance does not know. He said to them the other day after he had heard them: Oh, at every change in the tariff there are certain industries which come here and say that they are going to be seriously affected, but I notice that they continue cutting off coupons. I am not sure that that is the proper spirit to show towards these leading business men. I think that their interests should have been fully and thoroughly weighed and considered and then, having done that an agreement should be entered into such as would not be injurious to them but if possible more beneficial than the existing conditions. What about the millers? The hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) said the other night: Why, the millers can grind not only for 8,000,000 people in Canada but they can grind for 100,000,000 people in the United States? I notice Sir, that in forming this agreement, although they say that wheat can go into the United States free, the United States government took care to say that they would not allow flour in free of duty. Can the millers of Canada grind for 100,000,000 people in the United States while they have a duty of 50 cents per barrel to pay which is more than the profit they would make on a barrel of flour.


William Manley German: 


Mr. FISHER.: And the American miller has to pay the same duty if he sends his flour to Canada.


William Manley German: The American miller has to pay the same duty if he sends his flour into Canada, but when did any one ever hear of the American miller sending any flour into Canada. I never heard of it. We manufacture flour for ourselves, we wish to manufacture our flour in our own country for ourselves and for export. I am not objecting to the United States government putting a tariff on flour, or putting a tariff on anything else, but I say that in entering into an agreement of this kind which ties up our business interests we should look carefully after those business interests, and one of the things which these gentlemen should have done in framing that agreement was not only to have our wheat go into the United States free but our flour also.
It is said that the farmers will be benefited. So far as the county of Welland is concerned there are two townships in the county which grow quantities of fruit, but they also grow large quantities of ordinary farm products, and it may be said that the people of the county are almost exclusively a farming community. In 1891 the farmers of that county were anxious to get into the Buffalo market, but, in view of the home market we have established since then they are not now so anxious. I doubt very much, Sir, if the farmers of my county, or any other county in Canada will be very considerably benefited, if benefited at all, by this agreement. Why, Sir, the whole argument of the statesmen in the United States in favour of this proposition is that it will decrease the cost of living in the United States, and how in the name of all that is sensible is it going to decrease the cost of living in the United States and at the same time give a higher price to our farmers for their farm products? I certainly cannot reconcile these two things. But, I do not think it will give any considerable benefit to the farmers of this country and even if it did give some small benefit I think that benefit may be obtained at a cost too high for the general welfare of this country. Now, Sir, let me say that in my own county there is at least one-third of it (comprising the townships bordering on Niagara river) is contiguous to the Buffalo market. The Buffalo market would be a very natural market for the agriculturists there, and they might in some instances get a higher price for their commodities on the Buffalo market, and it might be more convenient for them than to go to the town of Welland where they would get nearly the same price. But, Sir, what would hap-pen_the same vehicles that carry the

Canadian farm products to the Buffalo market for sale will bring back from Buffalo the merchandise required by the farmers to carry on their farming operations, and which will be purchased from the United States merchants. That, Sir, is one reason why I object to this problem; that is a reason why the merchants in our locality object to it, and it is a reason why large interests throughout the length and breadth of Canada object to it. And, Sir, what this agreement will do in that county it will do in other portions of the Dominion. It has already been said what the effect will be, and I believe it, that British Columbia will trade with the Pacific coast states, that the western provinces will trade with the states to the south of them, and so on from the Pacific to the Atlantic, our people will be trading with the American people north and south instead of trading east and west among themselves. I noticed some time ago an article in the Toronto ' Globe ' headed:	'The National Grange Is Answered.'-referring to the National Grange of the United States-and it is answered by a letter from Mr. Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, and the ' Globe ' newspaper quotes that letter with approval, and this is what Mr. Wilson says:
If this reciprocity treaty becomes the law of both countries our relationship with Canada will become more intimate and our trade with her will extend and increase. The trains that bring farm products to the United States will take farm, orchard, and manufactured products back, and whether a policy of union of the two countries ever comes about or not, we will become more and more one people, developing along similar lines and supplementing each other in many respects. The raw material that comes from the Canadian farm will be manufactured in the United States and what is not needed will be sent to foreign countries. If this is desirable on the part of Canada it certainly should be desirable on the part of the people of the United States.
Well, Sir, I for one stand here as an exponent of the fact that such a thing is not desirable on the part of Canada, and I do not believe that a policy which is supposed to bring about such a result should be enacted by this parliament. That it will do so the ' Globe ' newspaper evidently believes, for it quotes that letter wdth very great approval. Well, that is what Mr. Wilson says and that is practically what every prominent man in the United States says to-day, namely, that it will take the natural products of Canada to the United States to be manufactured there, and what is not needed of these manufactured goods for their purpose will be exported to foreign countries or sent back to Canada to be purchased 142
and consumed by us. Sir, I believe that we must keep our natural products in Canada. I believe that we must have a policy that will keep our natural products in Canada to be manufactured in Canada by Canadian citizens and for citizens of the empire. And, if there is to be a reciprocity treaty at all it seems to me that a true reciprocity treaty would be one which would encompass the empire at large. If we are to have a reciprocity treaty we should have a reciprocity treaty which would give protection within the empire against all countries, so that there would be between British colonies and the British dominions beyond the seas and the mother land, a free trade amongst ourselves. It has been said that if the Unionists in England come into power they may give a preference to Canadian wheat, but I do not believe they will ever get into *power on that platform. What I believe is this:	That so long as we tax
English goods for our own benefit the English people will not tax themselves for our benefit. But, Sir, I do believe that when the Prime Minister of Canada goes to the Imperial Conference this summer, if he will take his Minister of Customs with him, let this matter stand in abeyance in the meantime, and discuss that problem with the statesmen of England, he will come back home with a resolution that we will all agree to.


Wilfrid Laurier: What problem do you refer to?


William Manley German: The problem of imperial reciprocity.


Wilfrid Laurier: Free trade within the empire?


William Manley German: Free trade within the empire. If that policy can be carried out, to my mind it is the true policy for the British Empire. I think that we in Canada, whether we are manufacturers or not, should show our faith in the heritage we have by more than word of mouth, and if we are to have reciprocity, let us have it within the empire on such terms as can be satisfactorily and beneficially arranged. But if we cannot have that, then the only true policy for Canada is the policy which was admitted by the Finance Minister and this government to be the proper policy, that is, moderate protection with a stable tariff. My observation and inquiry lead me to the belief that if we are to build up in Canada a nation commensurate with our capabilities, that is the policy which must be adhered to. And, Sir, we cannot have any jug-handled policy. The right hon. gentleman who leads the government and his associates think that they are satisfying the farmers of the Northwest and many of the farmers of the east; but I can tell



them that they are not. The farmers are not getting what they want; they are not getting what they ask for-all that they ask for, at any rate. They asked that the duty be taken, off agricultural implements. That will be the cry in the Northwest in the next Dominion elections. The farmers there will say: You have given us reciprocity, which does not do us any good; we wanted the duty taken off agricultural implements, which would have done us good, and you refused. I believe that just as sure as the sun will set in the western sky on the night this agreement goes into effect, in three years you will have the farmers of the Northwest back here calling for protection to their interests, or else for doing away with the whole fabric of protection in Canada. There cannot be anything different, considering that every farming country in the world, with few exceptions, can send its agricultural products into Canada without paying any duty. We are told that these countries are far away and that, therefore, they cannot send any goods here. We do not know what time will do in that regard. The Minister of Finance says that if this arrangement does not work well, we can do away with it at any time. But see what has happened; you have upset all our business conditions and created a want of confidence throughout the country; and if that does not mean anything else, it will mean one thing which I shall honestly deplore, and that is the defeat of the Liberal party. I say that we need the protection which we have now, not only for manufactured goods, hut for agricultural products as well. I might say, in the language of the hon. leader of the opposition, adequate protection. The only difference between him and me is that he does not tell us what in his opinion adequate protection is. I believe that the protection we have at the present moment with, of course, such slight changes as may be necessary from time to time in the interest of the business industries, is all the protection that Canada will require. It has been adequate to bring to our country millions of dollars of foreign capital to be investigated here; it has been adequate to bring to this country millions of dollars of United States capital for the building up of manufacturing industries; it has been adequate to increase our population by millions; it has been adequate to establish and build up thriving industries throughout the length and breadth of the land; it has been adequate to bring to our doors the representatives of one of the strongest governments of the woTld seeking admission to our markets. It seems to me that a policy that has been adequate to do all these things is good enough to be left quietly alone. It seems to me that the Finance Minister should Mr. GERMAN.
nail to the masthead of this Canadian ship of state the flag of protection with a stable tariff, under which Canada will continue on the highway of prosperity and advancement which she has travelled in the past, and will be filled with a prosperous and contented people. .


Mr. F. B. CARVELL (Carleton, N.B.).: Mr. Chairman, there is cast upon me this afternoon the somewhat unpleasant duty of attempting to reply to two hon. gentlie^ men with whom I have been associated i* the past in the most friendly relations., who have been my political friends and associates, and who have decided to oppose the government of the day on the question now agitating this country as well as the great country to the south of us. I have nothing but the kindest words to say of these two gentlemen, because I am bound to believe that they are speaking their inmost thoughts and are entirely sincere in the course they have taken and intend to pursue. I have listened with a great deal of attention to the remarks of my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. German). I have been somewhat struck with the generalities of the arguments which he has offered, and the absence of anything in particular on which one can meet him in order to see whether his conclusions are well founded or not. Both he and the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) have chosen to discuss this question almost entirely from the standpoint of free trade and protection. They have assumed that it means the breaking down of all the barriers which they say have made Canada prosperous in the last 25 or 30 years; they are assuming that _we are throwing away our protective tariff and are bringing in a free trade tariff, and they have studiously avoided any reference to the details of the agreement under discussion. It will be my duty to try to bring the minds of the members of this House back to the true condition of affairs and to discuss the question submitted in these resolutions.
I want first, however, to point this_ out to my hon. friends opposite, especially those members from the west of Lake Superior who so wildly cheered my hon. friend from Welland when he said that in three years, if this agreement went through, he expected to see the farmers of the west come back here and ask for protection for themselves if they did not get free agricultural implements. I wonder if my farmer friends from the west who cheered that so wildly will not be going through the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan in the next three years telling those people that what they want is free agricultural implements, and condemning this government for not giving them free

agricultural implements. I wonder if my hon. friend from Welland and my hon. friend from Brandon would like to vote for free agricultural implements. If they do, then there is an entire absence of logic in the whole argument put up by my hon. friends against this proposed agreement. The trouble is my hon. friends cheer everything which they think may create some little friction on this side. We, however, on this side are not losing any sleep because my hon. friends from Welland (Mr. German) and Brandon (Mr. Sifton) have chosen to take the course they did, and the Liberal party is big and broad enough to treat those two gentlemen as friends, and yet allow them to disagree with us in this matter. But when my hon. friends from the west go around telling the farmers that they want free agricultural implements, how will they square this with these two hon. gentlemen or the rest of their party?


Mr. LENNOX.: You do not know the west.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have had the privilege of meeting here about a thousand men from the west and of listening to what they said, and I know what they asked for, and I am bound to think that they were sincere. I know that they asked for free agricultural implements, and I would ask my hon. friend who interrupts me if he would vote for free agricultural implements, as possible he may have a chance to do so before this session is through.
This question has been discussed altogether from the standpoint of free trade and protection. My hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) says that we have broken down the bulwarks of protection, and that the citadel itself will soon fall. Let us examine this proposed agreement and see whether it has broken down the bulwarks of protection or not. The government have brought down a proposition to provide for the free entry into Canada of certain articles. I shall not weary the House by going over the list, but I shall give a few in order that my hon. friends opposite may appreciate the true condition of affairs. We propose to bring in under the free list cattle, horses and mules, sheep and lambs and other live stock. Will my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German), or any hon. gentleman opposite tell me how it will injure the people of Canada to have these things brought in free? Do we import any of them? Why, these are among our staple exports. Then, how on earth can it injure us to have free imports of those goods which we are sending out of this country by the tens of millions. We next come to wheat and other grains. As we do not import those grains, it cannot do our people any harm to have them in free. Then we 142J
come to fruits, which I shall discuss later on under a different heading. We next come to dairy products. I have not the exact figures at hand, but during the last-year we exported something like $20,000,000 worth of dairy products. Surely, therefore, it cannot injure us to have such products on the free list. Then we have fish,, and I propose to discuss fish under a different heading. But will anybody tell me-that Canada is importing fish to any great extent? Why, we exported last year to-Great Britain and the United States soqie-thing like $10,000,000 worth of fish, and imported practically nothing. How, then, can it injure us to have fish on the free list? We come next to iron and the manufacture of iron. There is, perhaps, taking it all around, the smallest duty on manufactures of iron that there is on any other great industry in Canada. Iron rods have been free for years and rolled sheet iron, which comes very largely from Great Britain, has only had a duty of 5 per cent imposed on it when coming from the United States. Will it hurt the consumer or the Canadian manufacturer to have those articles come in free of duty? Then we have lumber, but lumber has always come in free of duty. How, then, will it injure our purchasers of lumber to have it still come in free? So you can go down through the whole list of free articles, and in none will you find that their free admission can possibly hurt any Canadian interests. Why did of.r commissioners agree to allow these things in free of duty? Surely you have only to ask the question to answer it. It is in order that we may have the privilege of sending other articles from Canada to the United States free of duty, and the whole question resolves itself into this: Is it in the interests of the Canadian people that we should have the right to send these things into the United States free of duty?


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Does my hon. friend argue that taking particularly the case of grain-in the case of those products which we export, none will come in if we take off the duty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not an authority on the question of grain, but I can tell my hon. friend that, as far as the maritime provinces are concerned, no grain will certainly come in from the United States. As regards the west, we are, perhaps, the largest exporters of grain of any other country of the same population, and I cannot see how, under the circumstances, it is possible that we should import grain into Canada to any extent.


Arthur Meighen: How can it do us any good to have the export duties in the United States taken off in the case of products they export?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am told that practically all the time during the last 20 years wheat has been higher in the United States "than in Canada. If wheat is higher in Minneapolis than it is in Winnipeg surely it must be to the advantage of Canadian farmers to be able to send their wheat to Minneapolis free of duty.


Arthur Meighen: I am not disagreeing with the hon. gentleman, but only want to understand his argument. How can it apply in the one case and not in the other?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I urn giving the facts, and I allow my hon. friends to draw any conclusion from those facts which to them may seem proper. In addition to the free articles which we allow into Canada, we allow a larger list of manufactured articles. I shall not go over the whole list, but I want to point out that in all that list I can only find three items on which, under this proposed agreement, the duty will be less than it is under the British preference, and only two on which the duty is made level with the British preference. If that be ture, and I am quoting from the blue-boos published by the government, how on earth is it going to injure the Canadian farmer, when the Canadian consumer can bring all those articles which are manufactured in the United States from Great Britain today and pay a less duty than he does if he brings them from the United States under the proposed agreement? I am, of course, aware that there are some items in this list which are not imported from Great Britain to any great extent, and possibly in that case the items which come in from the United States will, to some extent, meet, or go into competition with the home product, and I presume it is on that line that my friends urge such serious objections to this arrangement.
I wish to discuss this matter from a maritime province standpoint. We have had very little discussion from the west, none from the maritime provinces, excepting the speech of the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Kyte) who discussed it largely from the fish standpoint; we have had practically no discussion from Quebec, except from the moneyed interests of the city of Montreal in the person of the hon. member for St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). I shall not go into the history of this matter, as has been done by so many hon. gentlemen but if I have been able to read history aright, I believe that the wish of everybody from the maritime provinces, Conservatives or Liberals, has been to have free access to the American market for our natural products. I have been led to believe that that has been the wish of a very large section of the people of Ontario and Quebec, and I believe it is so to-day. I know that it is practically the unanimous Mr. MEIGHEN.
wish of the maritime provinces electorate. My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Poster) says that in 1891 the Conservative party buried the question of reciprocity and also that in 1898 the Liberal party buried the question of reciprocity. I do not propose to go back to 1897 or 1887, what I wain't is to get down to the present and see how this proposed agreement is going to interest or affect our people at 'the present time regardless of what the opinions of either party may have been in the past.
I represent a purely agricultural district, and the same may be said of my hon. friends from York, Queens and Sunbury, Kings and Albert, Victoria and Madawaska. and" two or three other constituencies. There aTe three or four others, like Resti-gouche, Gloucester, Northumberland, Kent and Charlotte, which are largely interested in lumbering and fish. What I have said of New Brunswick is true to perhaps a greater extent of Prince Edward island and to at least as great an extent of Nova Scotia._ I have gone into this agreement with a view to seeing how it affects people in the maritime provinces and have made a list of the articles we export, which our people are compelled to export in order to earn the necessary money to send to Ontario and Quebec and other parts of the world in order to buy manufactured articles, because Temember that while the hon. member for Welland (Mr. German) told us what a great development had taken place in his constituency and in the province of Ontario in manufacturing. I am sorry to say that has not been the case in the maritime provinces, and I do not believe that outside the steel industries in Sydney there is as much manufacturing going on in the maritime provinces to-day as there was twenty years ago. That is a veTy broaid statement, but I make it with considerable knowledge of the conditions and I repeat that I do not believe there is as much manufacturing as there was twenty years ago. I know there is not as much in my town or in Fredericton, and I believe' that it is true of all the cities and towns in the maritime provinces with the exceptions to which I have referred.
I have here a list of the farm products which we produce and which we export, and the countries to which they are exported. It is not very long and I shall read it because I think it speaks more than any words I can utter so far as this matter affects the people of the maritime provinces. The figures I give are for the financial year ending 1909:
Exports to Exports to Article.	Great	United
Britain.	States.
Horses	$ G6,815	$446,971
Lambs.'.'	 415,912

	Exports to	Exports to
Article.	Great	UnitedSheep	.. .. 11,441	153,767Poultry.. ..	.. .. 27,468	137,290Berries	148,676Oats	534,680Hay	673,220Maple sugar.	.. .. 1,843	127,082Potatoes.. ..	.... 259	345,903


Turnips .. .: 550	173,933
Grass and	clover	
seeds.. ..	.. .. 239,507	489,180


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the hon. member has made a mistake in his figures with regard to potatoes. The amount given for the year 1910 in the United States publication was 97,138 bushels amounting to $36,770. It is not the figure given by my hon. friend.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: At page 39, of the pamphlet, Tairiff relations between the United States and Canada, correspondence and statements, 1911, which was brought down to the House by the government I find the figures I have quoted. This is the Canadian report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909. It must be correct, my hon. friend must be in error.


Mr. EDWARDS.: I took the trouble to. make a comparison between the blue-book-


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not object to my hon. friend asking a question, but I want to be allowed to make


William Cameron Edwards: If my hon. friend compares the book he has in his hand with the statement issued by the United States in book form he will find


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will answer that question. I have taken the figures which the Finance Minister has furnished this House; I believed them to be correct then, and I believe them to be correct now. I can tell my hon. friend that from my own constituency alone, last year we must have exported twice the amount of potatoes which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Daniel) has quoted. I know something about this business. I represent the greatest potato constituency in the Dominion of Canada. Last year we did not send nearly as many potatoes to the United States as we have done formerly. I can tell him that from my constituency alone last year we exported to Cuba as many as 250,000 barrels, this year we are not exporting as many. But last year we exported to Cuba and to the United States, and this year we aTe sending none to the United States, all going to Cuba and to western Canada,


Mr. CROCKET.: Would my hon. friend give the prices of potatoes in the States?
Mr. SCHI^LL. I would like to confirm the statement of the .hon. member for Car-leton (Mr. Carvell). According to the figures furnished me by the Customs Department, and which confirm the figures given by the member for Carleton, the exports of potatoes in 1910 from the maritime provinces to the United States were only 296,631 bushels at a valuation ol $144,302. The total exports from the Dominion of Canada to the United States were 678,632 bushels, at a valuation of $345,930.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Those are the exact figures.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the hon. member allow me to give my reasons for making the statement I did?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Certainly.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I hold in my hand a little book called 1 Canadian Reciprocity ' which was published by the government of the United States, and distributed by the Finance Minister, and which I got out of our distribution office upstairs. It contains President Taft's message, and contains all the figures which relate to the articles mentioned in the reciprocity treaty. At page 68, under the heading of imports from Canada into the United States during the fiscal years from 1906 to 1910, under the year 1910, the valuation for potatoes $36,770, the very figures I gave the hon. gentleman just now.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now the hon. gentleman ought to remember that I was quoting Canadian figures for the year 1909, and he is quoting United States figures for 1910. I have told my hon. friend that last year, 1910, there were very few potatoes sent to the United States. I have admitted that, and I do not see any necessity for this discussion. I know the figures I have quoted are right, I could give the figures for my own constituency almost without any blue-book. Now if' hon. gentleman will allow me to proceed I will follow this out a little further. I find that of turnips we exported to Great Britain only $550, and to the United States $174,000. Of grass-and clover seeds, to Great Britain, $239,000; to the United States, $489,000.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Would the Speaker allow me to interject a question?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, Mr. Chairman, T have put up with almost every thing, but I think this is going rather too far.


William Sora Middlebro: With his permission, of course.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not object to my hon. friend asking me a question, but when it comes to asking me to adjourn my speech in order that he may have a conversation with the Finance Minister, that is asking too much.


William Sora Middlebro: I will only ask this question, I want information. I find for instance, in a report published by the

United States government, they say that we exported from Canada $2,317 worth of wheat whereas Canadian statistics show that we imported here $55,000.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not want to be discourteous to my hon. friend, I am not discussing wheat at the present time, I do not know anything about the document which he is quoting. Now I want to be fair with tliis House, and I admit that there are other articles exported by the farmers of Canada in which the trade with Great Britain is very much greater than with the United States, but those are articles which *we do not export to any extent from the maritime provinces. I refer to butter, cheese, bacon, wheat, wheat flour and cattle; these are not exported to any great extent from the maritime provinces.
Now I want to take up the question of fish, but I will not go into details. I find that during the last year we exported altogether of fish to Great Britain to the extent of $5,368,000, while we exported to the United States fish to the value of $4,524,000. But of the goods exported to Great Britain $4,573,000 consisted of canned salmon and canned lobster. If you substract that from the total export to Great Britain, you have left the beggarly sum of $794,000 as the total exportation of all fish products in their natural state, or including smoked products; whereas of the same class of articles we exported to the United States nearly $4,500,000 worth.
Then take the question of lumber. Now if there is a portion of Canada which is vitally interested in the lumber question, it is the maritime provinces. I submit this table of our exports of lumber:
Sp. deals	
Laths	
Logs	
Shingles	
Planks and boards...
Scantling	
Sleepers and ties	
All lumber products..
Great	United
Britain.	States.
$ 5,825,732	$	572,003
130	1,852,211
39,324	958,918
1,274	2,298,055
1,387,439	17,877,319
487,262	593,428
15	328,277
10,635,643	22,241,166 I
I want to point out that no man can manufacture spruce deals without having considerable by-products in the way of laths. In nine-tenths of the cases, the profit which the manufacturer makes upon spruce lumber lies entirely in the money vdiieh he gets out of the by-products, and these he cannot sell to Great Britain, indeed you could hardly give them away to Great Britain. Our market for by-products during all my lifetime has been in the United States. We have been compelled to send them there during the past in the face of a duty at the present time of $1.25, which was previously $1.50, and $2 pet-thousand.


William Sora Middlebro: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: Those figures are for the year ended 31st March, last.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. Then I have taken up the pulp and paper question, and I have found the following results :



[Stage Direction]
Great United Britain. States.
Wood pulp chemically prepared	$	21,094 $1,597,319
Wood pulp mechanically
ground	
888,898	2,557,990Printing paper	
527,851	1,246,795
[Stage Direction]
Now, Sir, these are the principal products of the maritime provinces that will be affected by this agreement. Let us look at what our people have been working against for the last year. We have to pay the following duties, in order to get these goods into the United States :
Horses, from $50 to $75.
Lambs, 75 cents each.
Sheep, $1.50 each.
Poultry, 5 cents a lb., almost prohibitive.
Oats, 15 cents a bushel.
Hay, $4 a ton.
Maple sugar, 4 cents a lb.
Potatoes, 25 cents a bushel.
Turnips, 15 cents a bushel.
Mr. HENDERSON.: Turnips 25 per cent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thank my hon. friend for correcting me. I have not the figures before me ; I am just speaking from recollection.


David Henderson: That is about 3 cents a bushel.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They are only worth 10 or 12 cents a bushel, and this is pretty good protection. On all kinds of rough lumber up to two years ago we paid $2 and upwards per thousand, while now we are paying $1.50. In the face of these almost prohibitive duties the people of the maritime provinces and of eastern Quebec have been compelled by the necessity of the case to send to the United States ten times as much of their products as they have been able to send to other parts of the world. Now, I want to know if the people of the maritime provinces ought not to want this agreement to go through if the statements that I have given are correct. I am not going to discuss the fish question to any great extent because that was discussed by my hon. friend from Richmond (Mr. Kyte) who understands it so much better than I do, that I will not trespass upon that ground, but I have just this general remark to make that of ordinary fish products, except canned goods, while we are sending $700,000 wrorth to Great Britain, we are sending almost $4,500,000 worth to the United States. Does any man say that our people who labour in the fields, and in the

forests and who toil on the deep do not want a chance to sell their products in the best market that they can find?
They hold up this bogey of annexation, and some of the ladies of Toronto, as well as the men of Toronto, tell us that we must be loyal and that we must not put this thing through. They say that we will be disloyal if we do. The farmer, the fisherman and the labourer of the maritime provinces will not say that we are disloyal if we attempt to give them a better price for their products than that which they are now able to obtain.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman who pays the duty on lumber that enters the United States?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: * Well, I will give the hon. gentleman my personal experience. Perhaps that is the best kind of evidence that anybody can give. I can tell him that in my own constituency we raise hay for export. '


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am speaking of lumber.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Of lumber? Oh, I thought you wanted everything. The exporter in every case pays the duty.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does he?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know he does ; I am interested in that business, and I know what I am talking about. I challenge my hon. friend to furnish figures to show that he does not. I represent a constituency which lies for fifty miles up and down the border line, my father's farm adjoined the boundary, and I was born within half a mile of the international line. I know something about the business. The man who has stumpage for sale on the American side of the line can get from $4 to $5 a thousand for spruce lumber as it stands. The man who has that same lumber on our side of the line, almost within speaking distance of the American lumber, has to sell it for from $2.50 to $3.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Mr. J. R. Booth, here, says that the American pays the duty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Well, my hon. friend will have a chance to answer me later on. He asked me and I am giving him my evidence, and I know what I am talking about. I am interested in the export of laths and I know that we have to pay the whole duty of 50 cents. I know a man who manufactures laths in Aroostook county, just across the imaginary line from my home and he gets 50 cents more for his laths than I can get. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) was very anxious to know about the potato question. It is a fact that this year potatoes are worth more in the county of Carleton than they are in the county of Aroostook, Maine.
They are worth probably to-day 30 to 35 cents a barrel more on our side than they are on the American side. That is due to the fact that there was an absolute failure of the potato crop in western Canada. There were no potatoes at all raised in southern Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, we have the potatoes for sale, and they are going to that western country by hundreds of carloads. I know that there are exporters of potatoes from my own county and in Victoria and Madawaska who have shipped into that western country hundreds of carloads during the past four months. That extraordinary condition of affairs has created a market which is redounding to the advantage of our people at the present time. We are delighted to have it continue, we are able to sell our potatoes at a splendid price, but in the last twenty-six years at least which I recollect very distinctly there has only been one other occasion when potatoes were worth as much on our side of the line as they were in Aroostook on the other side of the line, and that was in 1907 when the customs tariff was revised the last time. Because they were sending potatoes from the United States to Canada I was able to induce my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) to increase the duty from 15 cents to 20 cents a bushel. That is the only time in the history of this industry when potatoes were worth as much in New Brunswick as in the state of Maine, or in Canada generally as in the United States. I knew that my hon. friends wanted to get this information, and I have given it to them. But we hope that a kind providence will cause the production of a full potato crop in western Canada, and if that takes place the potato market will revert back to its original condition and potatoes will be worth more in the United States than in Canada if this deal goes through. I want my people to share in that benefit. Let me tell my hon. friend that during the last 20 years, from my constituency alone about 1,000 of our very best farmers have sold out and gone, not to western Canada, not to the big cities of the United States, but just across that imaginary boundary line into the county of Aroostook and to-day they are prosperous and happy. These men have had the advantage of the American market under the same conditions as we shall if this agreement goes through, and as an illustration of their prosperity let me tell you that on the first day of July last I myself counted 42 former Canadians who are now resident farmers of the United States and who crossed over to a Dominion day celebration in their automobiles. I wonder how soon will the Canadian farmer be able to enjoy such a luxury. I trust that in the near future under the benefits of this agree-

ment, our Canadian farmers will be able to sell their potatoes in the United States market to the same advantage that our Aroostook friends have been able to in the past.
At six o'clock, committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to discuss to any great extent the effects of this arrangement upon the fishing industry of the maritime provinces, but I want to point out something local that comes within the purview of my own observations in the province of New Brunswick. I refer to the sardine fishery in the county of Charlotte. I am told, and I am satisfied from my own research that it is a fact, that there are about $325,000 worth of small herrings caught in the waters of the county of Charlotte alone and exported to the neighbouring county in the state of Maine to be manufactured into sardines. Under the general United States tariff there is a duty, of i of a cent per pound on fresh fish, but in some way, by means of their tariff regulations, this particular kind of fresh fish are allowed to go into the United States free of duty provided they go in an American vessel commanded by an American master. In that way they go in as American fish. As a matter of fact, the Canadian fisherman catches the fish, puts them in hogsheads, and then they are transferred from his vessel to an American vessel commanded by an American skipper, in which they are taken to the packing establishment, distant not more than three or four hours' sail. The result has been that hundreds of our vessels have been transferred from the Canadian register to the United States register, and hundreds of our citizens, who are the owners and managers of these vessels, have been compelled to become United States citizens, and, in fact, to reside in the United States before being allowed to man these small vessels in which the fish are carried away. If this arrangement goes into effect, the result will be practically this: Our fisherman will be able to catch his fish, as he has always done; he will register his vessel in a Canadian port, so that it will become again a Canadian vessel; he comes back and becomes naturalized as a British subject; he is able to live at home; he increases our population, and he cap carry on a legitimate business, catching these fish with his own labour and that of his sons, and taking them to the United States and getting the same price that he gets to-dav. When you consider that in the present conditions we are sending $325,000 worth of these fish from one county alone Mr. CARVELL. ,	:	'
to the United States, you can understand to some extent what the free entry of fish into the United States means to the maritime provinces.	.


David Henderson: Would these sardines have free entry into the United States?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They would not go in free as canned fish; they would go in free as fresh fish. They go in free now, but it is by manipulation of the United States customs regulations; but the trouble is that our fishermen are compelled to alienate themselves and their vessels from their native country in order to get them in free. The duty of J of a cent per pound on these small fish is prohibitory, because the average price the Canadian fisherman gets for them does not exceed J of a cent per pound, and as the United States manufacturers are dependent upon our people for their supply they have winked at the regulations, construing them differently from what they were intended to be, and have got the fish in in that way.	,
There are other fisheries all along the maritime coasts of Canada and up the St. Lawrence river to the province of Quebec, and what applies to the county of Charlotte, applies to the other portions of maritime Canada, even to a greater extent, because in the case I have described the people of the county of Charlotte actually get their fish into the United States free of duty, while in all other portions of maritime Canada the fishermen are not in a position to take advantage of the regulations, and, therefore, are compelled to send their fish there in the face of a duty of f of a cent per pound, and when you come to consider that compared with the total price the fisherman gets for his fish, it is a terrible handicap, which in many cases is prohibitive.
Up to the present time I have discussed this question very largely from the standpoint of the maritime provinces. I would like to know what some of our Conservative friends from the maritime provinces think of this proposition. I am sorry there are none of them in their places this evening. However. I shall have to say what I intended just as if they were here, and I hope thev will do me the honour of reading it in ' Hansard,' and possibly at some future stage of the debate reply to some of the statements I make. I would like to know what mv hon. friend from the county of Kings, Prince Edward Island (Mr. Fraser) has to sav about the right of his fishermen to send their fish and his farmers to send their potatoes, their turnips, their oats, their hay and all their other products to the United States free of duty. I would like to know what my hon. friend from the countv of Cumberland (Mr. Rhodes) has to say about this. I would like to know what

my hon. friend from the county of Digby (Mr. Jameson) has to say about this. Surely he knows what it means to his fishermen much better than I do; he knows what it means to his farmers, his lumbermen and to every labourer in the province of Nova Scotia. If my hon. friend votes against this proposition I would like to know how he is going to square himself with his constituents. Then I come to my own province. My hon. friend from the city of St. John (Mr. Daniel) will no doubt vote against this proposition, because he has no fishermen in his constituency. He seems more interested in the negro question than in reciprocity. But I come to my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket), who represents an agricultural constituency which bounds mine for 25 or 30 miles, and is vitally interested in this question. I would like to know what he thinks about it. I am sorry he is not here, because I shall be compelled to read something that affects him particularly. While he may possibly screw up his courage to the point of voting against these resolutions on the broad ground that they are disloyal and will lead to annexation, I want to show the House what was the opinion of the bon. member for York only a short year ago on one very important item in these schedules-I refer to shingles. In the last fiscal year the Dominion of Canada exported to Great Britain shingles to the magnificent value of $1,274, and in the same year she exported to the United States shingles to the value of $2,298,055, and I think I am safe in saying that nearly two-thirds of all the shingles exported by Canada to the United States went either from the maritime provinces or from eastern Quebec. Only one short year ago, when my hon. friend from York had no idea that there was going to be reciprocity with the United States in natural products, when he had no idea that his manufacturing friends in the city of Toronto, who control him, would be able to dictate how he should vote, he wrote the following letter to the Minister of Finance:
House of Commons,
Ottawa, March 11, 1910. Honourable W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Fielding,-I have a communication from the Scott Lumber Company, Ltd., who operate two or three mills in my constituency, requesting me to lay before you, in connection with the recent negotiations between the Canadian and the United States governments upon the tariff matter, the representation that the recent increase in American duty upon shingles has seriously affected the business of Canadian mills, particularly in the maritime provinces. They claim that the rate of 50 cents per thousand is unreasonable and almost prohibitive, and that in the interest of this trade, our government should at least endeavour to have it reduced to the old basis of 30 cents a thousand.
I trust that if the question of revision of the two tariffs is taken up, you will bear this communication in mind.
Yours truly,


OSWALD S. CROCKET.
[Stage Direction]
My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) this afternoon wanted to know what evidence I had that lumber was worth any more on the other side of the line, or who paid the duty. Let me refer him to the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) who is an authority with the hon. gentlemen opposite. He says that fifty cents per thousand on shingles is almost prohibitive. I say so too. I know something of the shingle business, because I have clients who are probably the largest shingle producers in the maritime provinces, and I tell my hon. friend that there will be no boon which the lumber manufacturers of the maritime provinces will prize so highly as a reduction of 20 cents a thousand on shingles. And what is true of shingles is true of laths and boards and scantlings and hay and oats and almost everything which these provinces produce.
Before leaving this branch of the case, I should like to give the House some figures on the potato question, because that seemed to bother my hon. friends opposite this afternoon more than anything else. During recess I took the trouble to look up the exports of potatoes from Canada to the United States during the last ten years, and I think it is only fair that the House should be in possession of all the facts. These exports were as follow's:
1901		$ 67,151
1902		 327,016
1903		 56,969
1901	 712,537
1905		 18,301
1906		 128,363
1907	(nine months only) .. ..	1,250
1907 w'as the year to which I referred before dinner, during which I said potatoes were much higher on our side of the line, and that is the only time in my lifetime up to this year when that condition existed.
1908		$ 15,159
1909	 251,907
1910	 315,903
This is a complete history from the Canadian standpoint, of the exportation of potatoes to the United States up to 1910.
John Waterhouse Daniel: Exports from Canada to the United States?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I have discussed that question from the standpoint of the maritime provinces, and propose now to discuss it briefly from the general standpoint.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Could the hon. gentleman give the imports into Canada from the United States of potatoes during those years?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I have not the figures at my hand. No doubt in some years potatoes have been imported by us to some extent, but nothing like the extent to which they were exported.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Last year there were more imported.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The debate so far has been confined to the discussion of a very few articles. We have had the wheat question discussed in nearly all its phases. We have discussed cheese to some extent, bacon to a great extent, wheat, flour and cattle and also fruit.


Haughton Lennox: And hay.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I discussed that this afternoon. I want to take up first the question of cattle. My hon. friends opposite say that if this agreement should go into effect, the cattle industry would be entirely driven from the British market through Canadian channels into the United States, and I think that my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said that the cattle industry would become centred in a few years in Chicago instead of Winnipeg. Let us follow that up. I find that last year we exported to Great Britain cattle to the etxent of $9,-
979,000,	but I find that the United States exported cattle last year to the extent of from $12,000,000 to $15,000,000, practically all of which went to Great Britain. But, exclaim my hon. friends opposite, if you put this proposed agreement into effect, you will ruin the cattle trade. I ask why? It cannot ruin the cattle trade because if we send our cattle to the United States it will only be because the American buyers will pay more. Will that hurt the Canadian farmer? I fail to see how it will. I do not believe that my hon. friends opposite would say that they do not want our Canadian farmers to get the best prices possible. Well, should they be right in their contention, and should our cattle be driven to Chicago, that can only happen because our cattle will there command better prices. This, however, is what I believe will happen. I believe that the best quality of our cattle will still go to Great Britain, as in the past, but the poorer quality will go to the United States and sell there at better prices than we have got in the past. Let me explain why. The purchasers of cattle for the British market will only take animals up to a certain standard because the freight is paid, not by the pound, but by the animal. I am referring now to water transportation. The space taken in a steamship by Mr. CARVELL.
an animal weighing 1,400 will not be greater than that [taken by an animal weighing 1,000 pounds; and owing to this difference in freight rates, it is impossible for our farmers to sell their lower grades at anything like what they can get for their higher grades. But should this agreement come into effect, these lower grade animals will go into the American market, and will there command the same prices as we now get for our higher grade. That is what this proposed agreement means to the cattle producers all over Canada. They will send their better animals to Great Britain to the same extent as heretofore, but they will get a much better market than they now enjoy in the United States for their inferior cattle. Further, I believe it will not be long before the United States will cease exporting cattle. I find that three or four years ago the United States were exporting $24,000,000 worth of cattle per year, whereas last .year they only exported some $12,000,000 or $13,000,000 worth; and it is quite within the realm of possibility that within the course of a few years the United States will cease exporting cattle altogether. The price in the American market will then go up, and our farmers all over Canada will reap the benefit. No one will seriously argue that our farmers should sell to the British market at reduced prices when they can get better prices in the American market. That is a species of loyalty I have never seen worked out yet practically. My hon. friends opposite prate about loyalty but not one of them would sell his cattle at five cents less per head in the British market than he could get in the American market. Give him the slightest advantage in the world and he does not care two cents where the article goes, he will sell it where he can get the best price and if he can get a better price in the United States than in Great Britain that is where it will go. That is how they will tell us the cattle trade is going to be ruined.
I come next to the question of pork. The hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton) said that if this arrangement went through the packing industry in Canada would be absolutely ruined and every hon. gentleman opposite who has spoken has said the same thing. Their newspapers have said that for a month, it is the stock argument of the Conservatives that the packers of Canada will be ruined, particularly in the packing of pork. Last year we exported to Great Britain bacon to the value of $6,422,747 and of hams $413,645. I shall not take the trouble to quote many figures regarding the price of hogs because that was thoroughly given by the Minister of Agriculture. The minister stated that every week in the last year, with possibly one exception, hogs were higher in the Ameri-

can markets than in the corresponding Canadian markets. While the hon. member for Brandon was speaking, I sent to the reading room for the ' Globe ' and ' World,' and compared the prices of hogs in the different places in Canada and the United States for the preceding day, February 27. I found that the prices were as follows : Belleville, $6.50 to $6.60, 100 pounds; Peterborough, $6.75 ; St. Thomas, $6.60 to $6.65; Buffalo, $7 to $7.30 ; and Chicago, $6.85 to $7.15. In other words, on February 27 hogs were worth at least 25 cents a hundred pounds more in the United States markets than in the corresponding markets in Canada, and the Minister of Agriculture gave figures showing that that condition had existed for the past year. Let us see what will happen if this goes into force. My hon. friend says that the packer will be ruined. Why ruined? Because he will be compelled to pay the Canadian farmer what his hogs are worth. Is that any disadvantage to the Canadian farmer? I fail to see it, and if the Canadian packer wants to do business let him pay what the hogs are worth. Does any man tell me that the Canadian packers, with all the combination they have in force at present, and with a duty of 11 cents per pound protection, cannot pay the Canadian farmer what his hogs are worth? If he cannot I am afraid the Canadian packing industry is not of very much benefit to the people of Canada. But, Sir, I do not believe that statement, I do not believe them when they say they cannot pay this price. I know they can, I know they will. Possibly their dividends will not be as great as they have been in the past, but I think the fanners of Canada can well afford to allow the packers to receive a little less in dividends and give them what their hogs are worth in the open market.
Coming to cheese and butter, we sent last year to Britain $22,000,000 and to the United States $22,000. We had an entirely prohibitive duty against these products going into the United States. My friends may say : Oh, you are selling to the same market as the United States producer is. I want to give only one concrete illustration of what this meant to the Canadian farmer, that is the illustration referred to here by the Minister of Agriculture. When the Payne-Aldrich tariff was brought into effect two years ago, by a mistake the duty on cream was placed at 5 cents a gallon instead of 5 cents a quart. The result was that whereas in 1908 we practically sent no cream to the United States, last year from Quebec alone we sent $1,500,000 worth of cream. I wonder if the Canadian farmer in Quebec finds fault? Do you suppose he sent that cream to the United States because he got less for it than in Canada? No, Mr. Chairman, the farmer down in Quebec is just as human as the farmer in New
Brunswick and he does not care what the destination of his product is, it is the money he is after, and if he sold that cream to the United States to the extent of $1,-
500,000	he did so because there is more money in it than in selling in the Canadian market. If this happened in one year the result in four or five years in the export of cheese and butter would be simply astonishing when the market is thrown open to these products.
The hon. member tor Brandon stated that the Quaker Oat Industry of Peterborough would be absolutely ruined if thi3 arrangement went into effect. I shall discuss this first from a local standpoint. The local consumption of this product with
8,000,000 people, must be considerable, and we pay enough for this in the maritime provinces. The men who can take ordinary oats and by treating them can sell them at the price charged does not lose much. If they want to sell in the local market, they have to-day the modest protection of 50 cents a hundred pounds, or half a cent a pound on the product of oats. That duty is as prohibitive as a duty of 200 cents a hundred pounds. That will be the case if this agreement goes through. To-day they have a protection of 60 cents per hundred pounds, and they say because that is reduced from 60 to 50 this industry, which I am told has cost $2,000,000, will absolutely close down and go out of business. Does any reasonable man believe that statement? Why, Sir, you only have to state the proposition to show the utter nonsense of it from the local standpoint. Let us take the export standpoint. It was argued-not by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. iSifton) because he very wisely gave^ no reason for his statement, and if I admired him for anything in his speech it was for his acuteness and astuteness in making statements and not backing them up by facts and arguments-it was said that the Quaker Oats establishment would go out of business. The Quaker Oats people say that the duty does not affect them so far as the foreign market is concerned. They sav they send the great maiority of this to the British market, which I believe is true. The oats may cost them a little more, I believe they will because owing to this arrangement the price of oats will be higher, although I must confess that in the great markets of Canada and the United States perhaps there is no product of Canada which so nearly equals the price of the same product in the United States as oats. To-day there is not more than one cent in favour of the American product. But, suppose he has to pay three or four cents a bushel more for his raw material, he starts out on practically the same footing, and it will not cost any more to produce the article for shipment to England than it does to-day. Oh, they say, there is

the offal, the bran products and all that ; we cannot export that to the United States because there is a small duty upon it of 12J cents per hundred pounds. The argument is that we cannot send offal over there, and that is where our profit comes in, and the result will be that the manufacturers will transfer their factories to the United States, they will be able to export the finished product to the British market the same as from Canada, and sell the offal on the American market. Now, I looked up this matter in the ' Trade Returns,' and do you know that of all the millions and millions of bushels of grain that are grown in Canada, including wheat, including oats, including, every sort of grain that you can imagine that is exported, during the last fiscal year we only exported the bran of all kinds of grain to the paltry sum of $1,000,000. I do not suppose the export of offal from that oat factory down in Peterborough would be probably more than $5,000 or $6,000 ; but it must be almost infinitesmal when you come to consider that of all the manufacturing going on in Canada, of all the grinding of grain going on in Canada, only $1,000,000 worth of this offal has been exported.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the by products of the Peterborough factory only amount to $5,000 or $6,000?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, I said that is all that was exported. Why dont they use that offal to-day? Dont our farmers buy that offal? The offal from an oat factory is not very good; there is some nourishment in it, and there must be hon. gentlemen in this House who have used it, but I have not. I wont feed my horses with it, I want something better than that. They use it for cattle to some extent, but they have been buying it in the past, and wont our farmers buy it in the future? Do you mean to tell me that you are not going to raise any more cattle m Canada in the future, that this country is going entirely to the dogs, and there will be no more sale for offal? That is as ridiculous as the hog argument. The result will be that they will go on manufacturing in Peterborough the same as we have done, and they will make just about the same profits, notwithstanding all the cry they are making, after all the argument put forth by the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Sifton). I tell you here to-night that there will not be any closing down of the factories in the oat industries, business will go on as the demand all over the world increases, and just so will our business increase in Canada.
Lastly I come to wheat. Now wheat is a big problem. I admit it is something which I do not profess to know much about, in fact what I am going to give the House Mr. CARVELL.
about wheat will be largely information which I have gleaned from listening to speeches during this debate, and from a study of the situation from the trade and navigation returns. I told my hon. friend from Portage (Mr. Meighen) this afternoon, in reply to a question, that I knew wheat was worth from 2 to 4 or 5 cents a bushel more in Minneapolis than it was in Winnipeg and Fort William, and such has been the case continually. Why it is, I cannot tell you. I am told that it is in some cases because the American miller wants the wheat, and on account of the transportation conditions, the Dakota farmer is able to get 2 or 3 cents more for his wheat than our farmer gets.


Mr. BARKER.: Has the hon. gentleman ever considered whether the increased price was not due to our wheat being a sounder and stronger wheat?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: No, because the American wheat has the greater price, the American gets 3 cents a bushel more than our people do. I do not see my hon. friend's point.


John Dowsley Reid: Does the hon. gentleman mean to say that the American wheat is better than Canadian wheat?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Why, no, Mr. Chairman, I did not make any such foolish statement as that. I do not think my hon. friend does me much credit when he asks me if I made such a foolish statement as that. I think my hon. friend ought to give me credit for knowing better than that. I know that our -wheat is the better, there is no question about it. I know that when wheat is made free the Americans will buy our wheat because it is better, and I know that our producers will get a better price than they are getting to-day. Now let us see what we are doing. Last year we exported to Great Britain somewhere about 27,500,000 bushels of wheat, and Great Britain imported from all countries in the world 163,000,00 bushels of wheat, and of that quantity she took from the United States about 24,0u0,000. I will admit that if for all time the United States were able to export to Great Britain the same number of bushels as we do, and conditions remained the same in the British market, and there was no preference given to our wheat, as an ordinary rule, if we had the same transportation facilities as they have, if we had the same commercial relations as they, the prices should be the same. I want to be quite fair about that. But remember it is only a few years ago when the American people were almost monopolizing the wheat market in Great Britain, and if present tendencies continue as they have in the last ten years, I be-

lieve that in ten or fifteen years the United States will cease to be a wheat exporting country at all. When that time arrives will it not be of some value to us to have free access to that market? I know the answer will be:	But they are bound to
buy our wheat any way. I tell my hon. friend that they can buy Argentine wheat if they want to, and let it in free. It may surprise them to be told that last year Argentine exported twenty per cent more wheat to the British market than we did, and Argentine is one of the greatest wheat producing countries in the world. If Argentine wheat went into the United States free of duty, would it not be better for our farmers to have that market in addition to the British market? Because in Great Britain everything is always open to it. I do not think there is much danger of the British workingman ever voting to put a duty upon the wheat his family uses. Depend upon it, the British market will remain free for all time as it is to-day, and we will have that market open to us. Now in addition to that, when the United States becomes a wheat importer, we are on the ground floor, we are in a position to do the business, provided we do not throw away the opportunity and fetter ourselves with customs regulations which will prevent us from taking advantage of it.


Samuel Barker: If our wheat is of a higher grade and of a greater value, why should we not establish our own market and sell our own wheat at its proper price rather than mix it with American wheat?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Who has been talking about mixing? It is only my hon. friend who is mixed. The hon. member for Brandon was mixed on Tuesday. These are the only men I have heard that are mixed on this question. They tell about this wheat being mixed, I think it was the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster)-and we are pretty safe in attributing to him any erroneous statements of that * kind-I think he said in this debate: You might as well dump the elevators of Fort William and Port Arthur into the lake; when you get this trade agreement in force everything will go by American routes, our railways will go out of business and we are done forever. The hon. member for Brandon did not make quite the same statement, but he arrived at the same results, because he said there would be no more grading of our wheat, that you could not grade it, it would be mixed with United States wheat and would lose its' identity, it would be mixed with an inferior wheat, causing the price to go down, and the result would be that the Liverpool market which regulates the values of wheat would place a lower price on it. But who is talking about dumping elevators into the lake? Only the prophets of blue ruin opposite. Take the experience of the United States under present conditions. My hon. friends say that all this wheat is going by United States transportation channels. Last year we exported of our wheat through United States channels 25,950,000 bushels. How do my hon. friends account for that? There was no reciprocity then, there was no trade arrangement, there was no treachery oi treason on the part of the Liberals. Everything was going along squarely when things were well enough-as my non. friends say. Yet 25,000,000, almost 26,000,000 bushels of our wheat went through United States channels. Worse than that; of that amount
19,478,000	bushels actually went through the terminal elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur. How do you account for that? A child ten years of age could account for that, and the explanation is that it is purely and simply a question of transportation. I come back to my proposition of a short time ago. Give a staunch Tory one-tenth of a cent a bushel more on his wheat through American channels than through Canadian channels and he will jump at it every time; so will the Liberal. We are all alike in that way.


Samuel Barker: That is what you are arguing for.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Their loyalty is only lip loyalty and it is confined to that holier-than-thou community called Toronto. What is the future of the wheat industry from the transportation standpoint? We will get the advantage of whatever the American market gives to us, if there is any advantage. If there is no advantage the wheat will continue to go to Europe as it has in the past. It will go by United States channels if these channels are cheaper than ours, but if we can do anything to get our transportation rates down to the same level, or to a point one-tenth of a cent a bushel less than the United States rates, then the wheat will be shipped through Canadian channels. Does any man mean^ to tell me, that, with the history of the past in view and remembering how we have been going ahead in the last five or ten years, we will not be able to handle all the wheat that we raise in the next three or four years? I have here a comparison which shows the change that is taking place in the transportation of wheat. In 1903 we sent through the port of Montreal 8,000,000 bushels, whereas there were exported through the port of New York
14,000,000 bushels. I presume that that means both Canadian and American wheat. In 1908 the export through Montreal had jumped to 30,000,000 bushels and the New York trade had gone to 16,000,000 bushels. In 1910 Montreal had dropped to 20,000,000 bushels and New York had fallen to the

insignificant amount of 6,000,000 bushels. Can any man read these figures without coming to the conclusion that Montreal is going ahead in the transportation of wheat faster than any other place? It is only a short time when, if we pursue the proper methods, the Canadian route will entirely control the transportation of wheat. We have only commenced ito improve our transportation routes. It may be, as our hon. friends say, that we have spent $150,000,000 in building the National Transcontinental railway that i3 going to reduce the cost of transportation of the stable products of the west to Great Britain. We are, I believe-I hope so-entering into the project immediately of deepening the Welland canal. The government cannot start that work one day too soon to suit me, and I am told that next year we are going to commence the project of building the Georgian Bay canal. When we get these transportation routes perfected, even leaving out the Georgian Bay canal, and when the water in the Welland canal is deepened to 21 or 22 feet, does any man mean to tell me that we cannot transport wheat through Canada cheaper than they can through the Erie canal with a 6 feet depth of water? You only have to state the proposition in order to see the utter nonsense of the argument on the other side. I believe, and the figures prove that I am correct, that in the next five or ten years, the exportation of Canadian wheat will practically cease through American channels and we will be able to control it all through Canadian channels. I hope this government will go on with these improvements and if they do it will not be very long until we are able to carry not only all our own wheat but a great portion of the American wheat at the same time. We are reaching that point much faster perhaps than hon. gentlemen oppositie realize unless they have given some thought to the subject. We have improved our trade routes to such an extent within the last three or four years that we are able to compete with the American routes as is shown by the fact that last year Montreal exported three times the quantity of wheat than New York did. During the present winter, so I am informed by officials who know, more than half of the wheat that is being shipped through the Port of St. John is American wheat; the result of improving our transportation facilities as we have been doing. The government is not doing it all; the railways are doing wonders too. The Canadian Pacific railway will spend in the next three or four years $20,000,000 or $25,000,000 in perfecting their rail haul from the Georgian bay to Montreal. They have double tracked their line to Smith's Falls or Sharbot Lake. We had a Bill before the Railway Committee not long ago by which they are getting a charter for another road. We had a friendly little Mr. CARVELL.
scrap over it; the Canadian Pacific railway wanted to build the road through a certain portion of the country because they thought that they could get a three-tenths of one per cent grade by going by that route and the committee, I think rightly, alowed them to go that way. We have had the Grand Trunk railway improving their trade routes and we will have the Canadian Northern men, who are entitled to occupy almost the highest place among Canadian railway men, extending their road from the Georgian bay to Montreal and Quebec in a short time. When these improvements are brought into existence I have no fear as to the carrying of Canadian wheat through Canadian channels. I am taking up more time than I had intended.


Samuel Barker: If my hon. friend is going to continue and increase the shipment of wheat by the Canadian route through Montreal how is he going to get the western farmer a higher price for wheat down south?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought I explained that. I thought I explained that wheat is higher at the present time in Minneapolis than in Winnipeg. If it were the same price and we both continued to ship in the same quantities and to the same market we would still get the same price. I want to make myself perfectly plain. I want to be perfectly fair and to make my argument logical. I said that I was going to take up one other question which has been considered in this House and the country during the course of this debate and that is the fruit question.
Well, we got a shock this afternoon. My hon. friends pounded their desks when my hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) was talking. I think that some of them must be really in a worn out condition physically this evening, the, hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) for instance. All of my hon. friends opposite certainly did a lot of honour to my hon. friend from Welland and when my hon. friend from Welland, who was supposed to be the star actor, next to my hon. friend from Brandon (Mr. Sifton)


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who is to be the next?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: There will not be very many more. I will tell my hon. friend I can tell my hon. friends opposite that with the exception of those who have spoken there is not a 'next' on this side of the House. All the others accept the agreement loyally, believing that in helping to make it law they are doing something that will redound to their own credit and to the everlasting advantage of the Dominion. My hon. friend from Welland (Mr. German) dealt with the fruit question and he lives in a fruit district and he gives it as his opinion that his constituents will benefit by this

arrangement and he ought to know. Hon. gentlemen opposite tell you that it is going to ruin the fruit industry, that 800 fruit growers petitioned the government some time ago not to carry out the agreement, but between my hon. friend from Welland on the one side and gentlemen opposite on the other, for my part I would take the evidence of the hon. gentleman from Welland because he knows.


Samuel Barker: He said he did not know. Mr. CARVELL. He said he did know.


Haughton Lennox: No, he said he preferred to take the opinion of the fruit growers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not wonder my hon. friends want to get away from that point because it is all in out favour.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The member for Welland said he would accept the opinion of the men in the trade because he did not know himself.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friends are welcome to whatever comfort they can get from that.


Samuel Barker: Thank you.
TMr. CARVELL. The hon. member for Yale-Oariboo (Mr. Burrell) told us it was going to ruin the fruit industry of British Columbia, and Mr. McBride says so, and the whole Tory party of British Columbia says so, and the whole Tory party of Canada of course are bound to say so, but a newspaper printed right in the capital town of the constituency of my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) says the agreement is the best thing that ever happened for the fruit growers. Now, I am inclined to believe that newspaper. I do not believe that the fruit growers of British Columbia, who can raise the best fruit in the world, are not able to compete in the mining and manufacturing centres of the west with the fruit growers of California or elsewhere. As to the Niagara peninsula fruit growers, the morning after the Minister of Finance brought down these resolutions, I met a gentleman who is intimately acquainted with the fruit industry there, and he told me that the result of the arrangement would be that the Niagara fruit growers would have mofe of a consuming population within one night's run of the Niagara peninsula than they have now in the whole Dominion of Canada, and that he was veTy much mistaken if they would not have a very greatly enlarged and more profitable market. I think I will take that gentleman's statement in preference to the statement of those who know nothing about it.


Samuel Barker: Who was it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Perhaps it would not be fair for me to give his name.


Samuel Barker: Oh, yes it would.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I will give it to my hon. friend in confidence.


Samuel Barker: Oh, let us have it in public; he was not a Canadian.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: He was a Canadian, and a good one at that.


Samuel Barker: Name him then.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: But Mr. Chairman, British Columbia and the Niagara peninsula are not the only portions of Canada which raise fruit. There is a portion of Canada comprising about one-eighth of the population of this country-and we think more than one-eighth of the 'brains and ability of this Dominion-called the maritime provinces, and in proportion to population the maritime provinces produce fruit to as great if not a greater extent than do British Columbia and the Niagara peninsula. Go to the Annapolis valley and it is in the knowledge of eveTy gentleman in this House that, be they Grit or Tory, the farmers of that wonderful fruit growing valley-and there is nothing to equal it in the world to-day for raising apples-are enthusiastically in favour of this arrangement. To-day the apple growers of the Annapolis valley are compelled to devote their energies exclusively almost to growing a winter apple which they can export to Great Britain. True, they raise a summer apple called the Gravenstein, but at present they have no considerable market for them, and the production is limited in quantity. But, with the maTket of the United States, which this agreement will give us, the possibility of raising summer apples in the Annapolis valley is almost unlimited. Had these farmers had a market of the United States for the past ten ot fifteen years they would export quadruple the quantity they export at the present time. In my own constituency, twenty years ago we were growing a summer apple called the New Brunswicker, which is very much like the Duchess. It was developed by a Mr. Sharpe, who devoted his life to the industry and made a success of it, and twenty years ago we were shipping apples to Boston hy the carload and people were planting orchards all over the country. But the duty was put on in the United States and the market was taken from us and our orchards went to decay. Give us the United States market and these orchards will be resuscitated, and new orchards planted, and where to-day we do not sell a carload of that fruit in the United States, in a few years to come when the young trees which will be planted are in bearing, we will send hundreds of carloads.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the American duty against Canadian fruit 20 years ago?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was nothing; that is just what I am telling you; it was free. When fruit was free in the United States we could send our apples there, but when the McKinley Bill came into operation against us our orchards went into decay.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the hon. gentleman quite certain that under the United States tariff of 20 years ago Canadian fruit was free?	,


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not like to make a statement that I cannot back up with proof, and I have not the tariff of 20 years ago here, but I think I am right, and my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) will bear me out in the statement.


Mr. BLAIN.: I will not. Nobody would suggest that in the United States 20 years ago there was not a very heavy duty against apples as there is to-day.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Within my lifetime fruit was free going into the United States, and the apples were sent there in large quantities and they cannot go there to-day because of the duty.


Mr. LOGGIE.: Before the McKinley Bill.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes. I believe it is 21 years ago since the McKinley Bill came into force, and I mentioned 20 years ago, but the correction is only a quibble. That is about the size of some people.


Richard Blain: Since the hon. gentleman is personal, does he say there was no duty against fruit in the United States until the McKinley Bill came into effect?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not going to get into an argument with my hon. friend. I made the statement, and if I am wrong he can correct me.


Oswald Smith Crocket: We merely wish to understand your statement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We can raise in the Annapolis valley strawberries, raspberries, currents, and small fruits to twenty times the extent we are raising them to-day if we had the United States market, and the same is true of the St. John valley. About a fortnight ago a very prominent Conservative lawyer in the city of St. John, perhaps one of the most prominent Conservative lawyers in the province and who is interested in the steamboat business on the River St. John, told me in Ottawa that if this arrangement went into effect, from the constituency of Queens and Sunbury alone, in three years there would be a special line of steamers running on the St. John river direct to Boston in the summer time in order to carry this fruit, and this man knows what he is speaking about. He has Mr. CARVELL.
been for years interested in steamboating on the St. John river, and during the last three or four years they have been sending these small fruits to some extent by these steamers which tranship them to the International Steamship line at St. John for Boston, and I give his statement for what it is worth, and the hon. members for York and St. John know the gentleman to whom I refer. What is true of Kings and Sunbury is true of the county of York, the county of St. John, and every other county on the western side of the province of New Brunswick, as well as of many constituencies in Nova Scotia; and where we produce to-day one dollar's worth of fruit, we shall produce in a few years ten, fifteen or twenty dollars worth. That is what it means to the people of the maritime provinces.
Now, I want very briefly to discuss this matter along the general line which the debate has taken. Our hon. friends opposite would try to make the country believe, and try to convince themselves-for I think they are hollering to keep their own courage up-that this is a great big measure of free trade. Well, Sir, it is not half so big as I personally would like to see it. We are told that the Liberal party when they came into power borrowed protection from the Conservatives; but remember that we came into power pledged to obtain reciprocity from the United States if we could get it on fair terms, just as the Conservative party were pledged to obtain reciprocity, and would have been glad to have it down to 1896. We sent a deputation to Washington to endeavour to get reciprocity, and we would have been delighted to have got the arrangement which we have to-day. We could not get it. I presume we could have obtained reciprocity if we had conceded a large enough list of manufactured articles on. our side; but we would not do it. Our delegation returned home, and we introduced the British preference. Our hon. friends opposite may say that we introduced it in order to cater to the feeling prevailing at that time that we should do something to help out the British people and to prove our loyalty. I do not believe that was the object at all. I believe the British preference was meant by the government who introduced it, and I am sure it was accepted* by the Liberal party and by the country generally, as intended to ameliorate to some extent the sufferings of the consumers and producers of Canada from the National Policy under which we had been suffering so long. The government first reduced by one-fourth the duties levied on articles from Great Britain, and a year or two afterwards they increased the preference to 33i per cent, so that now we pay on articles coming from Great Britain only two-thirds of the duty that we pay on articles coming from the

United States or from any otner part of the world. Is that not a benefit to the consumers of Canada? That was the object, as I understood it, of introducing the British preference, and that was the reason my hon. friends opposite opposed it. There are members sitting in this Chamber to-night who have opposed the British preference from the day it was born down to the present time, and who would oppose to-night as strongly as before any proposal to increase it

why? Not because it helps the farmers, the lumbermen, the fishermen and the consuming masses of the Canadian people, but because they are afraid that it will interfere with the dividends of their friends the manufacturers. But I can assure the government that there is no way in which they can more ingratiate themselves with the people of Canada or do more good to the people of Canada than to bring down before this parliament adjourns a measure increasing the British preference to at least 40 per cent. Why did not my hon. friends opposite cheer the hon. member for Welland this afternoon when he said that he wanted reciprocity within the empire? They were as dumb as oysters when he said that, because they knew that af they accepted that proposition they would be flying in the face of the manufacturers, and that is one thing none of them will dare to do, from the leader down to the hon. member for York.


Oswald Smith Crocket: 'Would you suggest that the government should do it now?


Mr CARVELL.: I do most assuredly,-and I believe I am voicing the sentiment of a great number of the members on this side of the House, and I know that I am voicing the sentiment of a majority of the electors of this country. We have been toid m this debate to let well enough alone, u e have been told that thiis country has progressed for thirteen years past as it has never done before. We have been telling hon. gentlemen opposite that all along, but they would not admit it. Now they say this country has never been so prosperous as it is to-day. The hon. member for Welland, the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for North Toronto' have all said that it is prosperous because we have had a protective tariff, and they say that the tariff that we have had since 1896 is practically the same as the tariff we _ had from 1879 down to 1896. If the tariff which we have had from 1896 down to the present time has made this country prosperous, I ask why it did not make the country prosperous before 1896 if it was the same tariff? I tell you it is not the tariff that has made Canada prosperous. It is the tariff that has kept Canada from being as prosperous as it might otherwise have been. I can tell you what has made 143
Canada prosperous. When the Liberal party came into power in 1896, the hon. member for Brandon introdueea an immigration policy which will stand to his credit even if he should pasis over to the opposition side of the House, and under that policy we brought immigrants into the country, at first to the number of over
50,000	yearly, and latterlv in istill larger numbers. The result is that we have in the Northwest to-day a population which is using the manufactured articles of Ontario, and it is their consumption of these articles that is making Ontario prosperous. We in the maritime provinces cannot send our products to the Northwest or to Ontario because transportation is against us. We have sent practically nothing to Ontario but a little coal, and in the last few years a few potatoes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You have been sending fish for the last forty years.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Not to any great extent. I wish we were sending ten times as much as we are. We are not sending to Ontario anything like the quantity we are sending to the United States in the face of an almost prohibitive duty.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the hon. gentleman aware that two factories in Fredericton are selling goods in British Columbia?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, I am, and I am aware that they sold boots to British Columbia before the National Policy was ever thought of. We have not in the maritime provinces reaped the benefit of this increased population from a manufacturing point of view, though we have as good artisans as they have in Ontario, the same protective policy, as good brains, the power, and everything necessary to make a successful manufacturing country. We have failed, while Ontario has succeeded- why? Because Ontario has a great consuming population at its1 doors, and we have not. That is what has made Canada prosperous in the last ten or fifteen years, and not the tariff policy which this government has continued from its predecessors.
I would like to take a few moments to analyse this agreement in its results. My hon. friend from Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) did that admirably, much better than I can hope to do it, but I want to analyse it to some extent, in a rather different way, for the benefit of my friends from the maritime provinces. Our hon. friends opposite complained that we have abandoned the British preference, that we have thrown , over the mother country, that we are leading this country into annexation, that we are disloyal, that we are everything but good Canadians and British subjects. And why? Because, forsooth, we are asking for the right to sell our natural products in the



best markets we can find, and are content to pay the same duties as we have been paying in the past on everything we are manufacturing. Analyse that agreement and see what it amounts to. I have taken a leaf from the book of the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) and counted the number of items in the different schedules. On the free list there are 70 items, and of those there are 40 which we do not bring from Great Britain at all. Of the other 30 there are a number of which we import from Britain less than $10,000 worth, and of the whole 70 there are only two of which we import more than $100,000 per year from Britain. Those two are salt and grapes. I find, also, that the total imports from Great Britain of the articles on that free list last year only amounted to $4,190,000. If you deduct from that amount sheets of rolled steel, of which our imports amounted to $3,490,000, you have got the beggarly sum of $699,000 imported from Great Britain out of the hundreds of millions of our total imports from that country. Out of those hundreds of millions only the beggarly sum of $699,000 was the amount which we imported from the mother country of those articles on the free list, leaving out the item of steel. Yet we are told that this thing is not only injuring, but ruining the British preference. Then I counted the number of items on which the duty will be higher under the British preference than under the proposed agreement, and I find that these are only three, and that the imports of these three only amount to a few thousand dollars altogether. So that, even without increasing the British preference, the rates of duty on British imports will be still lower in every instance than the duties which the United States will pay should this arrangement go through. If there be any fault to find with this proposed agreement it is that under it the consumer is not getting his goods cheap enough. But if we should increase the British preference we would then put the consumer in the same relative position as he has enjoyed in the past.
I come now to the dutiable list, and I find that there are in it 101 items. Of those 29 are not imported from Great Britain at all and never have been. Of the items, the imports of which from Great Britain are under $10,000 per year there are 44, and there are only seven items of which we import over $i00,000 from the mother country. That is the dutiable list. And I find that altogether on that dutiable list we imnorted last year from Great Britain only $2,196,000, a mere nothing, whereas we imported from the United States, of the articles on this same list, to the extent of $32,359,000. And all we are asked to do is to take the duty off these goods to some extent-not to any great extent. Why, the Mr. CARVELL.
reduction is a mere bagatelle. We are only reducing the duties from 324 per cent to 30 per cent and 274 per cent, but still even that is some little relief to the consumers. Take item after item, and you will find a duty of 15 per cent, 25 per cent, 30 per cent and 32 per cent still left on articles brought from the United States under the proposed agreement. Take automobiles; last year we brought about $150,000 worth from the United States in spite of the duty of 35 per cent. I admit that if there be anything on which a revenue ought to be collected it is automobiles, because they are a luxury. But the duty is simply prohibitive. Under that duty it is almost impossible to bring in an automobile from the other side of the line. In my opinion it would be better both for the consumer and the manufacturer if that duty wrere reduced.


Samuel Barker: Why?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Because we would get a better article, because then the manufacturer would not dare put on the market the thing he puts on to-day and call it an automobile.


Samuel Barker: Our own people would make more, no doubt.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I know what I am talking about. I do not want to knock the manufacturers, but my hon. friend had better not ask me too many questions. If he wants information I can give it to him.


David Henderson: Are you a manufacturer?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am a consumer. And what is true of automobiles is true practically of other manufactured articles. I admit that we cannot have free trade in Canada, because we require a revenue, and, perhaps, the only way we can raise a revenue at present is by a customs tariff; but I do submit that it would be better, both for the manufacturers and the consumers if our customs tariff were reduced to such a point as would give us revenue and give the manufacturers whatever protection they can obtain incidentally from a revenue tariff. That question, however, has been threshed out during many years, and I do not propose to go into it now. But in my opinion a reduction of our tariff would be a good thing even for our manufacturers. in many instances they are twenty years behind the times. Their factories are not properly organized, they are not pursuing business methods, they are using the antiquated machinery of 25 years ago.


Mr. AMES.: Name some of them.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I might offer some of my own experiences, because I have had a little experience myself in manufacturing,

and I can tell you that we lost money because we did not have the proper machinery. Take the woollen manufacturers; will any one tell me that you could not make wool cheaper than it is made in our factories to-day if they were properly fitted with up to date machinery? Take any of our industries that are making money, and you will find that they have modern machinery and improved methods. If you would reduce the tariff you would compel our manufacturers to adopt these methods.


Samuel Barker: Why do you not go into the woollen business and try it yourself?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I do not want to refer to my own experience, but I have had a little experience in the woollen business, too, and I will tell you the results. There was a woollen mill in our town established some 15 years ago under the protective tariff. It had old machinery and poor management, and was run into debt until it owed the bank some $6,000 or $7,000. Finally the bank took it over, put in a little new machinery and better management, and ran it until the debt was wiped out. Then the bank said: We do not want to run that business any longer, and they stopped it.


Samuel Barker: Why did you not continue it?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The bank stopped it because it was not the business of a bank to run a factory.


Samuel Barker: You know how it can be done with profit?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, by better methods and better machinery. But what does this system of protection do? In nine cases out of ten it simply takes money out of the pockets of the consumers and puts it into the pockets of the manufacturers. If a factory is up to date and properly run, it gives enormous profits. If not it only drags along.' Let me refer to something with which I am perfectly familiar, and that is electrical machinery. I do not want to refer to my own business, but I was chal-enged by the hon. member and I will give an illustration. There are practically to-day only two great manufacturers of electrical machinery in Canada, the West'inghouse and the Canadian General Electric, and these people are charging us to-day for everything we buy, and I have bought thousands and thousands of dollars worth in the last few years, the cost in the United States plus the duty almost entirely. These people are putting out a splendid article, they have _ modern up-to-date machinery, well organized methods and they are. making money, and if you cut their duty down to 20 per cent or even to 15 per .cent they will still continue to do business in Canada because 15 per cent is enough to force them to come here, they will come and do busi-143i
ness in Canada, and every man buying a piece of electrical machinery would get the benefit of the reduction in price. It means a lot to our people, more to the small consumer than to the larger one, but that is a concrete illustration of what protection is doing in Canada. I tell the hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker! who is interested in one of these companies as it is in his constituency, that it would be better for the people of Canada if they pensioned off the
5,000	employees employed in this industry than to continue them and have to pay the present increased price owing to the duty.


Samuel Barker: What will the farmers say?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That there are only a few of them.


Samuel Barker: Ask the farmers.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: They will say: Cut the duty down, give us the machinery cheaper.


David Henderson: Why not put it in the treaty?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is the trouble. My friend the Minister of Finance was too good to the manufacturers, he saved them and look at the thanks he is getting for it. Another illustration. No industry in Canada has made the strides, has given us the results and has made as much money as the manufacturers of agricultural implements. Our agricultural implement manufactories should be a matter of pride to every Canadian. Massey-Harris and Frost & Wood, are two of the finest examples of energy, honesty and upright dealings in the history of Canada. They have developed and developed and made money. Under what? A 20 per cent duty, 225 per cent I think until 1907, then reduced to 17i per cent, and now proposed to be reduced to 155. If you want any evidence of what the farm machinery manufacturers have done, I find that in the last fiscal year these people exported from Canada farm machinery, mowing machines, reapers, binders, seeders, &c., to the magnificent amount of $4,300,000, and yet you tell me that a manufacturing industry cannot get along in Canada without 30 per cent or 35 per cent protection. My hon. friend from St. Antoine division (Mr. Ames) gave the whole thing away. He says you are attacking the outworks of protection and very soon the citadel will fall. The only men who are hit, practically, are the farm machinery men and they are saying nothing about it. I would like to know where you can get a better example of what can be done in Canada under a revenue tariff than the case of the agricultural machinery. We know that a revenue tariff produces revenue, because when the duty was reduced one-third, under the British preference, our revenue was quite doubled, not only our imports increased but our re-

venues. We know that such a tariff stimulates importation. People buy things cheaper, buy more of them, the home manufacture goes on just the same, the farmer gets more for his money and every one works more and we have a better condition of society. What happened when this _ arrangement was sought to be brought into effect? The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Customs went to Washington with the idea that if they could not get a reciprocity treaty practically in natural products they would not treat at all. They were carrying out the principle for which we have contended ever since I was a boy and for which the Conservatives contended when they were in power. I did not believe they would get it; nobody did, they did not believe it themselves, and they were so careful of the manufacturers that they did pot do for us what they should have done. Let me give an illustration. The Minister of Finance, on account of the protest put up by the coal barons of Montreal was only able to reduce the duty 8 cents in order to bring it on a par with the; American duty. Another illustration. I myself applied to the Minister of Finance to reduce the duty on an article which could be manufactured in St. John in enormous quantities, right on the shores of deep water, whence it could be shipped to the United States, an article of which millions and millions are sold every year. The minister could not do it because an industry in the province of Ontario might be affected and he did not do it. I do not know whether he was offered it by the American commissioners or not, as he has a faculty of holding his peace. I know he did not take off the duty and that the city of St. John cannot have that industry which would employ hundreds, I believe thousands of men in the next five years and would become one of the greatest industries in New Brunswick, simply because some protectionist gentlemen in Ontario felt that they would be affected.
Another illustration. The papers yesterday contained a statement of Senator Carter in the United States Senate to the effect that the United States commissioners wanted to make meats and flour free of duty and to put them on the reciprocal list, but that our commissioners would not consent to this because they were afraid it might interfere with manufacturers of the Dominion of Canada. I give these two illustrations of the way in which the manufacturers have been protected, in which all the interests of Canada have been protected, and yet men like the member for St. Antoine, to whom I give credit for being perfectly frank, says: You have attacked the outworks of protection and before long the citadel would fall. Fall? Because under this agreement we are going Mr. CARVELL.
to allow in from England $699,000 worth more goods than last year, if you bar out rolled steel, and a few millions of dollars From the United States.


Herbert Brown Ames: Please do not put words into my speech which I did not utter. If you Tend the part where I said the outworks were attacked you will see that is not the reason.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I fail to see what the reason can be. I listened attentively to the hon. gentleman's speech and read it, and that is the meaning I took from it.


Herbert Brown Ames: Do not entirely misinterpret my speech. If you read the portion referring to the outworks you will see it is entirely different.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I hope my hon. friend is recanting.


Herbert Brown Ames: Not a bit.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I thought not, it comes back to that, that the protectionist manufacturer will not allow my hon. friends opposite to accept this proposal. The hon. member is a manufacturer, and every man who buys a cheap shoe for his family knows the member for St. Antoine is a manufacturer, and he is as good as any of them.


Arthur Meighen: Will the hon. gentleman say he has not himself recanted when he is so jealous of the citadel of protection?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I am not; I am saying
that the commissioners were jealous of the citadel of protection. I have made myself plain. It was the commissioners who were jealous of the citadel of protection, and who tried every way in the world to pro-U ct these people. And what is the result? All over Canada, all the financial interests, all the bankers, some of the railroads-not all of them-the boards of trade, the manufacturers, have started a campaign against this arrangement. You would think that the whole citadel of protection was stormed and captured by reason of the paltry few millions of dollars involved in this arrangement. Now they say that the transportation interests are going to be ruined, that all the millions of dollars we have spent in opening up lines of transportation east and west are going to be wasted, because trade will now go north and south. I can only refer to the statement I read earlier in my remarks regarding farm products. In face of what would almost be considered a prohibitory tariff, three-fourths of all the farm products of the maritime provinces, yes, five-sixths, go to the United States now. But free trade in these natural products will hurt the railroads, we are told. I have shown what would

happen to wheat. It cannot hurt wheat, it cannot hurt cattle, it cannot hurt hogs; and it is only trying to draw a herring across the track when they say it is going to hurt the transportation interests.
Then the bankers say: You must not put this thing through because you are breaking down the bulwarks of trade-they do not say protection-you are unsettling all the conditions of trade. They say it is disloyal for a man to sell his horse, or his sheep, or his fish to the United States, although he can get a better price for them. The gentleman who was the leader of that famous sixteen in the city of Toronto did not think it was disloyal when he financed the cotton crop of the United States with the money of the Canadian people, and other banking institutions have taken Canadian money by the million out of this country and invested it in the United States. I tell my hon. friends that in many places our banks are nothing but savings banks, and if the farmer or any one else wants $100 or $200 he has got to get a number of his relatives to endorse a note before he can get that sum of money out of the banks. Still the_ bankers will take this money by the million to the United States or any-wbefe else they can. I remember that in 1907-8-I am saying something that I know -the banks in the maritime provinces increased the interest rate up to seven per cent and made that payable every three months, and when I remonstrated with them they frankly admitted that they could take their money to New York and put it out on call loans and make more than seven per cent out of it. And still they, got that 'money for three per cent from the farmers of the county of Carleton. This is perhaps ^ a little aside from the question under discussion, but I have in my hand something which was sent out by the banks, or at least by the ' Monetary Times ' of Canada, closely associated with the banks, and they have an impudence which excels anything I have ever seen. I find in an article called the Parliamentary Bank Act, on page 16, they say the government will hear the arguments, and then it goes on:
It is not to be expected that ministers will lend countenance to the extreme or revolutionary proposals that emanate from individual members of parliament. I
I want to know if you ever heard such impudence as that addressed to members of parliament. I want to tell these gentlemen that if I am alive I will be in the Banking and Commerce Committee when the Bank Act comes up, and perhaps I will be guilty of some of the revolutionary proposals which this article refers to.


Mr AMES.: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman is discussing the Bank Act instead of this trade arrangement.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It evidently hurts my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames). Now I come back to the subject. I want to tell my hon. friends, however, that while they may stand by the banks, and while they may stand by the manufacturers, and while they may stand by their interests, the farmers of this country, the lumbermen of this country, the fishermen, the labourers, all the toilers of this country, will stand by the government in the course they have mapped out for this country today. I have pointed out what it means to the agriculturists of the maritime provinces, I have pointed out what it means to the lumbermen of the maritime provinces, and I have tried to point out what it means to the agriculturists of the rest of Canada. I have pointed out what it means to the fishermen of the maritime provinces; and while as I have said, I do not feel capable of discussing the fishing industry in its details, I want to read to this House and to place upon the ' Hansard ' a statement made at a banquet in Halifax not long ago by the Hon. Mr. Murray, than whom no abler, no more patriotic, no more loyal, no more sincere politician is in public life in Canada to-day, a man who knows the needs of the farmers, the needs of the fishermen and of the lumbermen in Nova Scotia better than any banker, any manufacturer, or any other gentleman I believe who occupies a seat on the floor of this House. Here is what Mr. Murray says:


GREAT FREE MARKET.
[Stage Direction]
For a quarter of a century this great portion of our population longed for a free market with the nation to the south. Now that great wish has been satisfied and hope is filling the heart of every man who follows the sea for a livelihood. We have seen the tremendous development that Liberal legislation has wrought in our coal industry. I do not wish to be over emphatic here to-night, but I will say this. I believe no man to-day can foresee what a free market for fish will bring to the population of our sea-board. I see no reason to-day why the fishing fleet of Nova Scotia should not increase three-fold. I see no reason why we should not become the principal fish food producers of this continent. (Cheers.) And yet there are men in this province who would expect the honest toiler of the deep to listen to some befuddled arguments about endangering the British flag, or injuring the railroads that run east and west. They would even ask him to besmirch his sacred ballot by condemning a policy that means so much to him and to the generations to follow him. Does anybody say that because the Nova Scotia fisherman sells his fish to an American at better prices, that his loyalty is being impugned? Tf this is the case the electors of Yarmouth and Shelburne would be open to the gravest suspicion.
[Stage Direction]
Whatever our views may be upon other political issues, surely we can all agree upon this. When any one expects the fisherman who produces results by his own unaided efforts to refuse the privilege of selling in the dearest market; I say, when any man expects the fisherman to defeat by his ballot the realization of his long sought hopes, he offers an insult to that fisherman's intelligence, or else he believes that the fisherman is willing to stultify his conscience for party expediency. I believe, however, that the lesson of life has been too well learned by our fisherfolk for either result to follow.
I commend that to my lion, friends^ opposite, and I commend it to every thinking elector in the Dominion of Canada. I accept this trade agreement without any reservation whatever. As I have said before, it is something which the people of my province and of my constituency have been praying for ever since I was a boy. It is something the people of the maritime provinces have been praying for, that the people of Quebec have been praying for, that the people of the Northwest asked for when they came down here a few weeks ago. It is something that will build up this country, and will bring immigration into this country in a greater flood than we have ever seen it yet. Instead of our poonle leaving the maritime provinces by the thousands for the United States, they will come back by the tens of thousands. If in. my humble capacity -I can be of any assistance in helping to bring about this great boon to the people, then I will feel that my advent into public life has not been in vain; and if I Tetired to-morrow, I would feel that I am well repaid for all the trouble, all the energy I have expended, and all the time that I have lost.in my ten or twelve years of public life.
William Sora Middlebro: I do not propose to follow seriatim the arguments used by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), though I may touch upon some of them as I proceed in the remarks I propose to make. My hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., made one or two remarks which are to me so obviously incorrect that I think perhaps he will pardon me for saying a word with respect to them. I observe that he spoke with reference to the fruit trade of New Brunswick and he said that if the agreement were passed it would enable the people of New Brunswick to cultivate certain varieties of fruit and that they would find a very profitable market in the United States. He said that there was an apple called the Gravenstein that would be very favourably received across the line and that in four or five years, to use his own words, they would quadruple the quantity produced in New Brunswick. Would the hon. gentleman tell me how they will be able to quadruple the quantity in four or Mr. CARVELL.
five years when it takes ten years for the apple tree to mature sufficiently to profitably produce fruit?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I did not say that at all; I said: In ten or fifteen years.


William Sora Middlebro: No.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I beg my hon. friend's pardon.


William Sora Middlebro: My hon. friend said within six or seven years and later on he said that in a few years we will have increased the quantity ten, fifteen, or twenty times the present amount. If my hon. friend can tell me how he will increase the quantity ten, fifteen or twenty times in the number of years he has mentioned I would like to hear him. Then my hon. friend said that away back before the National Policy was inaugurated they used to export boots from New Brunswick to British Columbia. That would be six or seven years before the Canadian Pacific railway was built and then they would have to pay the duty, send them through the United States down to San Francisco and then up to British Columbia which only had a population at that time of
25,000	or 30,000. These are a few of the extravagant statements that my hon. friend made. He said something about cattle and the remark he made in reference to that was that Canada exported last year about $10,000,000 worth of cattle, that the United States also exported $13,000,000 worth of cattle; and that therefore-I suppose his argument was-that it was a good thing for Canada to have free intercourse with the United States with respect to cattle. If that argument proves anything it proves that as the United States exported $13,000,000 worth of cattle it is not our natural market but that our natural market is Great Britain, the country that takes the surplus of both Canada and the United States. But my hon. friend forgot to say that while the United States export of cattle had somewhat decreased the export of chilled and frozen meat was rapidly increasing. The country which can export frozen or chilled meat, as compared with live cattle, is the country that is doing most for its people because, by exporting the manufactured product you are keeping your cattle at home, you are giving employment to men in the abattoirs, you are giving employment to men who are converting the skins of the cattle into leather and the leather into shoes and harness, and when you compare the two nations that which is doing the former is in a much better position than that which is doing the latter. Therefore, when I say that the exportation of chilled beef from the United States is steadily increasing I am simply saying that the United States is wise and is deriving the benefit of that business. Then, my hon. friend referred to the question of

wheat. I confess that I am unable to understand his argument. If this treaty means anything to the farmers of western Canada it means that the amount of wheat from the northwest provinces that is today sent to the United States is going to be increased. If it means anything it means that the price on the other side is greater than the price on this side, and that therefore the quantity of wheat passing from this country to the United States is going to increase. If it does not mean that this agreement is of no use whatever to the farmers in so far as the question of wheat.is concerned. My hon. friend says that last year we sent to the United States
25,000,000 bushels of -wheat. I am only sorry to say we did. I think it does not say very much for the progress of Canada that we allowed 25,000,000 bushels of wheat to be transported over American roads and probably to be ground for us into flour thus depriving us of the bran, shorts and by-products which otherwise would have been available for the farmers on this side. Does he mean, by taking off the duty of 25 cents a bushel, to increase that unsatisfactory condition? If he does, then the wheat of the northwest is going to go that way. We have had hon. members on the other side of the House, I think the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Mol-loy), I think the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), I think the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), I think the bon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), stating that when the agreement was first placed upon the table they were somewhat of the opinion that the price of wheat would be materially enhanced to the western farmer. These gentlemen all also admitted on the floor of the House that practically speaking the price would not be increased by its transfer to the United States because the price was fixed by the Liverpool market. If that is true, where is thebenefit to the western farmer? Theonly apparent justification of it that was made by any hon. member in so far as I can remember was made by the hon. member for Humboldt who said that the western farmer would be profited because there are some lower grades of wheat that might be admitted to the United States and that they would probably get a better price for this wheat over there. The lower grades of wheat are nothing more nor less than the raw materials of the farmers of this country, and if we ship out the lower grades of wheat we are shipping out that which we should keep for the purpose of feeding our hogs and cattle. Once more I say that you are in that respect doing injury to this country.
I was very much amused the other day when the hon. member for Red Deer was making his speech. We are all pleased to hear the hon. member for Red Deer because he always makes a very interesting
speech, but I always feel sorry for him because he is the one man in this House who sticks to his free trade principles and is not afraid to make them known. I always feel that he is lonely when he is making a speech, that he is ploughing his lonely furrow, but it does always seem strange to me that he will advocate these principles notwithstanding the policy that has been practised in this country. He says that this agreement is to him a long step in the direction of free trade and he thinks that because free trade has been beneficial to England in days gone by it will be beneficial to Canada, The hon. gentleman is totally disregarding the conditions of the two countries. He said nimself the other day that Great Britain exported
1,600,000,000 dollars worth of manufactured goods. As compared with that Canada exports something like 30 million dollars worth. He knows that Canada is exporting about 150 million dollars worth of agricultural products; at the same time Great Britain is importing about 1,000 million dollars worth. The conditions in the two countries are entirely different. He also forgets the fact that there was a time in the history of Great Britain when she was in somewhat the same position that we are in to-day; that is that under a protective policy she so matured her manufactures that she eventually became supreme in the world and that she attained that position under and by virtue of a protective policy. After she became supreme in the world of man-nufactures protection became a thing that she no longer required and about forty years ago she abolished that system.^ The first move in the direction of abolishing the policy of protection for manufactured goods in Great Britain came from a protectionist government. Under the protective policy the industries of Great Britain grew to such an extent that she became supreme causing, to a certain extent, the farmers to abandon the fields, come to the towns and increase the consumption of the home products thereby decreasing the number who were engaged in agriculture. Therefore, agricultural produce became scarce and for that reason we find them taking the duties off corn. Hence we had the" repeal of the corn laws.
But, the position of Canada to-day is exactly the reverse because we are producing more of agricultural products than we are consuming, and, if my hon. friend's argument is good as to England then the reverse of his argument is good as to Canada, and consequently the policy of a moderate protection is the proper policy for this country. The hon. gentleman from Red Deer (Mr. Clark) spoke truly when he said that annexation would be a revolution, and that revolutions took place only when there was discontent among the masses of the people. I grant that. He

factured article, he finds that by reason of a little increase in the price of his product, he has to pay an increased price for the manufactured article he has to buy. Thus the thing seems to go round in a circle. But, generally speaking, the effect of this arrangement will be to decrease the price of agricultural products in the United States, so as to reduce the cost to the home consumer there, and if it does, not do that Mr. Taft may annul this agreement any day he chooses to do so. It seems to me a very natural thing that since the United States exports a large quantity of agricultural products, and since we do the same, our natural market is Great Britain, which has a great deficiency, and not the United States. If you shove a bushel of grain into Minneapolis while the United States has a surplus to-day of
150,000,000 or 160,000,000 bushels of wheat, you are simply shoving another bushel out at New York; but the injury you are doing to the Canadian is that you are allowing the Yankee to take that bushel of wheat from Minneapolis to New York, and thence to Great Britain, thereby depriving the railways of Canada of the benefit of the transportation. That is the only effect it has. If it does not increase the amount of wheat that goes to the United States, it does not have the effect that hon. gentlemen opposite desire. I am not going to ask the House to accept my opinion on this. I am going to give a few quotations to show what the Americans think is going to be the result of this treaty; and I am not going to take them from the newspapers, but from the official documents. On the 13th of February last, a letter was written by James Wilson, the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture of the United States, and that letter was deemed of such importance by the American Congress that it was printed in the 'Congressional Record.' In that letter Mr. Wilson said:
The United States produces a surplus of wheat. This is sold in foreign countries. The price of our exported surplus is governed by the world's requirements, being regulated by the supply and demand, and the price of wheat in the United States is governed by the price at which the surplus is sold.
I may interject that if that -surplus is sold, then the price of wheat to the western farmer wall not be affected by the removal of this duty. Then he goes on to say:
While Canada is exporting wheat and other grains and the United States doing the same, there is no particular reason why Canadian wheat should come here, unless it be that a mixture of Canadian and American wheat may be desirable on the part of our milling exporters, and our millers may find it profitable to handle the Canadian surplus; But the price to the Canadian for this surplus Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
wheat will be substantially the same whether sold in Europe or United States. However, if the handling of Canadian wheat by the United States railroads, merchants and mills has a tendency to reduce the price, it will be reduced to Canadians. In the western states, where the farmer has turned from grain-raising for sale, to the production of crops for feeding domestic animals on the farm, the new departure has been so profitable that lands in those states have risen in value to $100 to $200 per acre, and rents for from $4 to $6 an acre.
Let me read what was said by the hon. gentleman (Mr. McCall) who introduced the Bill in the United States Congress. On the 4th of February last he spoke as follows:
Both countries have long been exporters of wheat, although the surplus of Canada is steadily increasing an.d ours steadily diminishing, and yet we raise a very considerable surplus. In 1909 our exports of wheat and of flour in terms of wheat amounted to more than 114,000,000 bushels. In the same year the exports of wheat from the United States to Canada were greater than from Canada to the United States. The price of wheat in the United States, Canada, Russia and other wheat exporting countries are substantially adjusted with reference to the Liverpool price.
For every bushel of wheat that would come in from Manitoba, so long as we raise a surplus another bushel would go out at New York. If we did not restrict its importation a tremendous impetus would be given to our flour-making industry and the trades dependent. on it. The clearing of the transactions would create a business of an important financial character, much of the purchase price would be likely to find its way into the general channels of trade, and our American railways would have a profitable business which would aid in the maintenance and result in remunerative employment of labour. It may be said that the prosperity of Canadian railways would correspondingly decline. They would undoubtedly lose in the transportation of wheat, but they would gain in other directions.
He does not indicate in what directions. I do not think they would.
Obviously they cannot simultaneously increase their production of wheat, barley, potatoes and other agricultural articles included in the Bill except as the number of her farmers increase.
What does President Taft say? He says in his message to Congress on January 26, 1911:
Excluding the element of transportation, the price of staple food products, especiallv of cereals, is much the same the world over. . . . The currents of business and transportation facilities that will be established forward and back across the border cannot but inure to the benefit of the boundary states. . . . That the broadening of the sources of our food supplies, that the opening of the timber resources of the Dominion to our needs, that the addition to the supply of raw material will be limited to no particular section does not require demonstration.

On the same subject I quote:


Geo.   E.@: 
William Paterson: When was this said?


William Sora Middlebro: About the 26th of November.


William Paterson: It was then contemplated that there were to be reciprocal dealings?


William Sora Middlebro: Yes.


William Paterson: This was not sprung on the people?


William Sora Middlebro: No, the point I make-


William Paterson: That is the point I am making.


William Sora Middlebro: It was then known that the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Finance were in the United States negotiating for a reciprocity treaty, and I asked the Prime Minister then not to overlook the question of reciprocity within the empire. Notwithstanding that the First Minister of this country said about 13 or 14 days before he was elected by the people of this country, that if placed in power he would go to Great Britain and endeavour to get Great Britain to immediately inaugurate a policy of preferential trade whereby the farm products of Canada would receive a preference in Great Britain, notwithstanding he did that and was elected on that promise, the very first thing he did was to go to England and say: We do not want a preference in your market at all. And then they say Great Britain has not done for us what she should have done for us in the way of mutual preferential trade, when they themselves went over and gave a black eye to the policy.

It is said there was no discrimination as to the present preferential tariff in the proposed arrangement now before the House. I do not think any one can seriously contend that. But, I observe that the Minister of Finance telegraphed to Mr. Asquith as follows:
So far as British importations into Canada are concerned the British preference would be scrupulously maintained.
And the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), in speaking in this House, said:
I am absolutely convinced in my own mind that I am correct in what I state, that in no way, shape or form, in no way, general or particular, we are interfering with British interests in Canada by the proposal now before the chair.
Let me give two illustrations from the large list to prove that this is absolutely incorrect. When the Finance Minister said that the British preference would be scrupulously observed he was certainly not within the facts. .We were receiving from England at the time this arrangement was made, in the las} fiscal year, $3,500,000 of rolled iron plate, which came in from Great Britain, free. If Great Britain had had to pay the same duty as the United States on that quantity we would have collected in duty from her $175,000. Under the proposed arrangement she has not that advantage over her rival, because it is now made free to the United States; and at the same time we were collecting actually from the United States $137,000 on what we imported from her. To-day the United States will pay nothing whatever. In the face of that, how can any one say that the British preference has been scrupulously observed? Just another instance.
In the last fiscal year we imported from Great Britain $256,000 worth of salt and from the United States $141,000. The English salt was free, but the United States came in at 5 cents a hundred pounds, or about $36,000 duty was saved to Great Britain, while the United States paid $25,000. To-day the United States pay no duty whatever and Great Britain has no preference of $36,000, with respect to the duty on salt. In the face of these facts, how can any one say the British preference has been scrupulously observed?
_ T find the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) in his speech saying that:
i Rolled, iron plates represent seven-eiglitlis of the ^ British free list represented in schedule
And further on:
find they are made up nearly all of goods that sell on their own brand or patent. By reason of their inherent virtue they not only come into this country but in the face of a 40 per cent to 50 per cent duty they go into the United States and are sold there.
The hon. gentleman says he is justified in taking the duty off these other articles because they now go into the United States and climb over a duty of 40 per cent or 50 per cent. That means that this is a case where the British preference is not a preference, so that when hon. gentlemen have been maintaining that they have given Great Britain a preference upon this particular .article and that the same article can climb over a 40 per cent or a 50 per cent wall in the United States, it is clear that the importations into Canada are not due to the preference at all. But if you apply the same argument that these particular English goods sell because of some particular brand, or because of their known qualities, then I suppose that argument would apply to a great number of all the remaining importations from Great Britain, because most of the importations of Great Britain come in because of their particular brand, or their particular quality, or their known virtue. So the argument if carried o-ut to its logical conclusion, would be that you do not need the British preference at all, because the goods sell on account of their particular brand. I would like to ask the English merchants if they think that is a fair argument to them? I do not think they would accept it as a reason for decreasing the British preference. But while this arrangement makes an inroad on the present British preference, that is practically nothing in comparison with the fact that it strikes a death blow to the hope of mutual preferential trade. You cannot have a mutual preferential trade between Great Britain and Canada whereby you expect to have a preference on your agricultural products iu Great Britain, if you are allowing the same class of agricultural products to come in, not only from the United States, but from thirteen other nations of the world as well. The minute you do that you say good-bye to that mutual preferential trade which the Prime Minister himself led the people of this country to believe we would obtain when, in 1896, he said in Toronto: Place me in power and I will give you mutual preferential trade. You will say good-bye to that same policy, too, of which the Prime Minister, in 1909, spoke as follows:
Canada has opened her doors to Great Britain in hopes that she would ultimately receive similar preferential treatment from the mother country.
When you look at the schedules of the goods that come in from Great Britain you will
That is what he said in 1909, and yet his government brings down a measure to-day

they have not given us any information. My hon. friend from St. Antoine tells me that Argentine meat can be laid down for less than 7 cents a pound, duty paid. If that is the case there seems to be no doubt in the world that it will undermine entirely the home meat trade.
Let me show you how it affects my own little town with respect to transportation alone, and I have no doubt that every man could adduce some argument with reference to his own constituency. Owen Sound has a population of 13,000 or 14,000 and the Canadian Pacific railway lake terminal is situated there. This year, according to the board of trade reports, I find that we brought down from the west in mill products and grain 160,000 tons, and we sent back in package freight a like amount-160,000 tons. If you figure that out you will find out that it would give a cargo of 1,000 tons to 320 ships, and I may say that we have a great marine traffic at Owen Sound largely composed of grain, flour and by-products coming down and packing freight going back. If this arrangement has the effect that hon. gentlemen claim on behalf of the farmers of the west it will have, that is if it sends grain from the west through the United States, that grain will never reach Fort William. They say it is going to send it to Minneapolis, and St. Paul, and if it does not do that it is not going to benefit the farmer of the west as they claim and he is not going to send his wheat to the United States. But, I am assuming for the purpose of my argument that this arrangement is going to do what they say it is, that is it will send the greater portion of this wheat down to Minneapolis and St. Paul over American railways, and the consequence will be that the town of Owen Sound will be deprived of this remunerative and beneficial trade which gives employment to 320 ships with an average cargo of 1,000 tons each.
In another way it will injure Owen Sound-by reason of the increased traffic in grain coming down and in package freight going back, so large has become the shipping in the port that a dry dock must he established and I understand the plans submitted to the government for a dry dock at Owen Sound have recently been approved. And, if the carrying of that freight is going to be diverted from our lake ports as the government say it will he, and if that wheat goes to Minneapolis and St. Paul we will have less use for a dry dock at Owen Sound. I could point to many other instances where this policy will injure the people of Canada, hut these occur to me now in relation to my own town of Owen Sound. A word now to the western farmer and I trust he will pardon me. I would ask him if it would not be far better to continue to foster our Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
trade with Great Britain which now takes eight-tenths of onr exports of agricultural products; I would ask him, would it not be better to have our trade continue in channels east and west, and because of competition between the railways, and with the assistance of the Railway Commission thereby reducing the rates. If this agreement should have the effect it is said it will have, it will decrease the traffic east and west by increasing the traffic north and south to the United States, and if the traffic of the Canadian railways is decreased our railways will have to increase their rates to make the roads pay. If you decrease the railway freight traffic in western Canada by sending it over American railways, what is going to become of the Grand Trunk Pacific with respect to which we have provided that if it becomes a failure we have to take it over and operate it. I fear that this arrangement will have the effect of throwing on our hands the operation of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway. Then, I ask the western farmer: Would it not be better for him to have for the wheat going through Canada, government operated or owned terminal elevators; I ask him would it not be better for him to have government operation of the Hudson Bay railway; I ask him would it not be better for him to have established a complete system of government cold storage and chilled meat plants; I ask the western farmer would it not be better for him to have a substantial reduction in the duty on agricultural implements, and I ask him would it not be better for him and for all of us to have complete control of our own tariff, to maintain our self respect, and to strengthen the ties that bind us to the old land by mutual preferential trade. I think, Sir, that the consummation of these policies I have enumerated would be much more beneficial to the western farmer than would the carrying into effect of the arrangement which the government proposes. Now, a word or two with reference to the annexation question and, the remarks which I shall quote on this point, I shall take from official sources. I shall first of all cite the opinions of eminent statesmen in the United States as to the bearing of this treaty on the question of annexation. Senator Sherman made a speech in 1888 in which he gave his opinion as to the effect of reciprocity, and he said:-
The way to union with Canada is not by hostile legislation but by friendly overtures. This union is one of the things that must inevitably come in the future. The true policy of the government is to tender freedom in trade and intercourse and to make the tender in such a fraternal way that it shall be an overture to the Canadian people to become a part of the republic.
That is the language of a man who oc-

eupied a very prominent position in the United States.
President Taft in his message, says:-
They are coming to the parting of the ways. They must soon decide whether they are to regard themselves as isolated permanently from our markets by' a perpetual wall or whether we are to be commercial friends.
President Taft in his speech at Columbus, Ohio, on the 11th of February last, used this language:-
The greatest reason for adopting this agreement/ he said. ' is the fact that it is going to unite two countries with kindred people, and lying together across a wide continent, in a commercial and social union, to the great advantage of both. Such a result does not need to be justified by a nice balancing of pecuniary profit to each. Its undoubted general benefit will vindicate those who are responsible for it.
' I say this in order that by answering the arguments directed to the detailed effect of the agreement upon different classes of persons I may not be thought to abandon the broad ground upon which the opportunity to confirm this agreement ought to be seized.'
1 will not quote Champ Clark's speech in the House of Representatives in which he, as we all know, declared his object was annexation, and while it is sought by some to make out that he was joking I think the leader of the opposition has thoroughly disproved that. This is what Champ Clark said upon the hearing before the Ways and Means Committee on the 4th of February last:-


Mr. CLARK.: What are you going to do if we annex Canada?


Mr.   FINK@: That is something I had not thought of.


Michael Clark: You had better think of it, because that is what we are all fixing to do.
_ Senator MeColl, who introduced the Bill into Congress, according to the report of ' Congressional Record,' said in his very first sentence, and I suppose it was the thought uppermost in his mind:-[DOT]
The Bill takes a long step towards establishing for the continent of North America a policy of unrestricted trade and commerce, recognizing natural conditions that have been too long ignored.
Then, Representative E. J. Hill, of Connecticut, speaking in Congress on the 13th of February last, said:-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: If instead of this very limited reciprocity now proposed between these two countries, the question was presented to this House to-day of complete political union of both peoples in one magnificent government holding full control over all the North American continent between the Rio Grande River and the Arctic sea, no man here would say it ' nay.' (Applause.)
Congressman Martin, of South Dakota, speaking on February 13, said:-
I have often said I would like to see Canada annexed to the United States.
Then Mr. Wilson, Secretary of Agriculture, an open letter to the National Grange on February the 10th, wrote:-
If this reciprocity treaty becomes the law of both countries, our relations with Canada will become more intimate and our trade with her will extend and increase. We will become more and more one people. The adoption of the pending treaty would from the national standpoint be as much an act of wisdom as was the adoption of treaties in the past that have added to our common country more than half its present area.
1 quote from a speech delivered the other day in Chicago by P. C. Knox, Secretary of State of the United States, and this speech was delivered after Champ Clark's utterance and therefore was even more guarded than usual; Mr. Knox said:-
A trenchent writer on Canadian politics has observed that: a bitter cry went up (in Canada) for annexation to the United States after the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty with the United States in 1886.
Now, it will be noted that the only word printed in italics in this whole speech is the word 'after,' and what is the inference from that? Mr. Secretary Knox desires this treaty to be passed; he knows that Champ Clark's utterances have injured the prospects of its carrying in Canada, and he is very guarded, but notwithstanding he deems it necessary to use the word 'after' in the quotation given above and the word 'after' is italicized and the inference is that after the reciprocity treaty of 1854 was concluded annexation was likely, and that after the present reciprocity treaty goes into effect annexation will again be more likely to be consummated. Later on he said:-*
In the higher atmosphere and broader aspect of the situation it is certain that if there should be any great world movement involving this continent Canada and the United States would, as a matter of course, act in the most perfect concert in defence of the common lights of a common blood and civilization.
He concludes his speech in these words:
So that the reasons for reciprocity are very real and striking, and ought to lift the consideration of the result of the recent negotiations to a high plane and large-minded comprehension of the greater reasons and motives of human and national relations and rise above the mere balancing of trade advantages.
They have been telling us all along that it is a mere question of dollars and cents. Here is the Secretary of State of the United States saying that it is not a question of dollars and cents, nor a mere question of trade advantages, but he says it should be regarded from the ' high plane and large-minded comprehension of the greater rea-



sons _ and motives of human and national relations.' Any one can read between these lines and see perfectly well what is the intention.
Let me point out to you the letter written by the United States Secretary of Agriculture which was printed on February 13, 1911, as a public document by the United States Congress. Why was it necessary for him to cut out of that letter, before it was printed on the records of Congress, the words which I am going to read? Because he knew that they expressed what was in his mind too freely, and he did not want them to appear in a public document which would probably be read in Canada. These are the words he cut out:
The several additions to our territory in the west from foreign nations were made over the protest of many people of the days in which they were made. But a majority of the statesmen of the days took the broad view and the fair view of the future of their country, and these several purchases were made. Without them, especially the Louisiana purchase, the United States would be a much less important country to-day than it is. There was vigorous opposition to the acquisition of territory from Mexico, notably with regard to Texas, but the statesmen of that day took the broad, national view and the purchases along our southwestern border are to-day exceedingly important. There was an objection made to the purchase of Alaska. It was regarded as unwise, but the broad view and the fair view were taken by Seward and other statesmen of that day, and Alaska wa9 added. This might be said of other purchases.
Whether any more additions are to be made to the United States in this hemisphere the future will have to tell. Nothing is being said at the present time in either country with regard to political union with Canada. Far-seeing statesmen on the other side of the Atlantic say that the United States has opened the door a little to Canada, and that it may be opened wider in the future. However that may be, any one who glances at the map of North America, afid whoever studies the trade relations between the United States and Canada, will have to conclude, unless they are immediately interested in the effects of reciprocity, that the closest possible trade relations between the two great peoples would seem to be desirable. I
I would like to know why the Secretary of Agriculture omitted that passage from his address. There seems to be no other conclusion than that he had in his mind the thought that reciprocity would lead to annexation, and that the appearance of this passage in the official record might interfere with the adoption of the treaty by Canada.
Now, I will give you what some of the newspapers on the other side have said W. R. Hearst- the proprietor of the New York ' American,' a couple of months ago said:


William Sora Middlebro: Let us have commercial union first, and political union afterwards.
The New York ' Mail,' of the 9th February, 1911, said:
Let not Americans fix their gaze so intently upon barley or wood pulp that they miss the comprehensive view.
What does that mean? The ' comprehensive view ' means ultimate annexation.
The Newark ' Star ' of the 11th of February said:
But we should not begrudge advantages under reciprocity to Canada, for they are bound to come back to us with much greater value. Every American farmer who settles in Canada takes his nationality with him and helps to loosen the tie which unites Canada to Great Britain. The thousands of American farmers who settle in the northwestern provinces look to Washington rather than to Ottawa. They are imbued with A merican traditions and American patriotism. They have no idea of expatriating themselves. The time is not far distant when the question of the annexation of Canada to the United States will have become a burning issue on both sides of the border. And when that time ccmes the American element in Canada will make itself heard and felt.
The New York 'World' of the 11th of February said:
Trade between the United States and Canada should he as free as trade between the states. There is no more sense in dividing them hy a tariff wall than in dividing New York and Pennsylvania.
Which means that we should become a state of the American union. The Detroit ' News ' of the 8th of February said:
Lord Lansdowne confesses much when he
says:
Reciprocity means a diminution of the advantage enjoyed by British trade under the preference now given by Canada, and also the deflection of wheat to the United States. The whole history of the empire is surely altered if the great Dominions are encouraged to develop, not on national and imperial lines, but in accordance with geographical conditions.
The Buffalo ' Times ' of the 9th of February said:
Every howl which comes across the water from those British Bourbons furnishes an argument for the friends of reciprocity in the United States and Canada.
I am simply giving these opinions because I want to photograph public opinion on the other side of the line, and put that against what hon. gentlemen opposite are saying, and I cannot photograph public opinion better than by quoting what the officials of the United States and the newspapers of the United States say. The New York ' American ' of the 11th of February says:


Mr.   J@: Hill was probably not far from the mark when he said in his speech in St. Paul the other night that if reciprocity with Canada falls through at this time negotiations for a trade agreement may never be renewed between the Dominion and the United States. What may effectually block the resumption of reciprocity conferences is in brief British Imperialism. Without Canada the Chamberlain dream of an Imperial federation can only succeed in part, if at all, and without the Dominion it can scarcely be effective
The New York ' Evening Post ' of the 10th of February, commenting on Mr. Balfour's speech, says:
Mr. Balfour has condemned the Canadian reciprocity agreement as ' an Imperial disaster.' To the tariff reform Imperialists the probability that effect will be given to the agreement is indeed galling.
I have given these quotations for the purpose of showing what the sentiment is on the other side of the line. But some hon. members in this House have said that because we trade very intimately with a country that is no reason for supposing there is any danger of political annexation or absorption. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member from South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) have pointed to the great trade existing between Germany and England, saying that there was no danger of annexation there, and therefore there was no danger of annexation between Canada and the United States. I think they were begging the question entirely. What is the difference between the two cases? Great Britain has a population of 45,000,000 and Germany has a population of about 65,000,000. Great Britain is separated from Germany by a sea on which Great Britain is supreme. Canada is separated from the United States by an imaginary line 3,000 miles long. Great Britain is separated from Germany by a foreign language; here both countries have the same language. The difference between Great Britain and Germany in population and capital is not very great as compared with the difference between Canada and the United States.
What I say is this. A better and a truer comparison would be, not to compare Canada with Germany, but to compare the little several states of which Germany is composed and see what was their fate and then you will find an example or what may happen here. Because where do you find Germany to-day? You find that she has absorbed all these little states around her. She was originally Prussia, but by reason of her strength and prowess she absorbed all the little surrounding states, whose people were practically of the same race and spoke the same tongue; and by reason of the position she occupies to-day, she is the domin-144 i
ant power in the whole continent of Europe. There can be no doubt about that. Austria and Hungary dare not to-day be anything else but her ally and they know it. Hungary dare not be anything but an ally and practically a portion of the kingdom of Austria, because Austria, and not Hungary is the dominant power, and Germany is the dominant power over the whole of them. The result is that Germany, byreason of her power of absorption, is today the dominating influence in Europe; and the result in Canada, should this arrangement go through, will be just asi it has been in the states surrounding Germany. Just as Germany absorbed these little states so will the United States absorb Canada, and we will be politically annexed to that country. Is there a man in this House who will say that he would contemplate any such future with any degree of content? Why, what is the position in which we are to-day as compared with that in which the United States were a hundred years ago. The United States then had a population of 6,000,000, just the same as we had in the beginning of the present century, and that population was scattered along the eastern coast of that country from Maine to Florida. They had not a single railway going from east to west. They were simply a fringe of humanity looking out on the ocean, with their backs to the west which was practically unknown. They had not a railway or canal or the advantage of modern transportation in any respect. They had not a city on their western coast or any distance inland. At the beginning of the present century we start off with a population exactly the same as the United States had at the beginning of last century, namely
6,000,000. We consist of nine provinces bound together by two or three transcontinental railways. We have cities, not only on our eastern coast, but all away across the continent-Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver and Victoria. We have a railway mileage of some 24,000 miles, whereas the United States then had not a single mile of railway. We have all the advantages of modern agricultural methods and of modern traction methods. With these advantages there is, therefore, no comparison between what the Dominion of Canada may expect in the next hundred years as compared with what the United States had reason to expect a hundred years ago. If that be so, why not keep on the course in which we have started? Why not go on developing our resources for the advantage of our own people and not hand them over to the United States.
Taking all things into consideration, taking in view the fact there is such a great increase in the prices of agricultural products, that to-day, by

the evidence of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) himself, the prices of agricultural products in Canada are 37 per cent higher than they were in former years, I fail to see how the government can have made up its mind to push through this treaty, more especially considering that no opportunity has been given oui people to formulate their views on the subject.
The other evening the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) said this-and I presume it is the best possible argument that could be given why the government should submit this agreement to the people before putting it into operation. He said:
It is well known that on two occasions, especially the government of Canada made an exhaustive and careful examination into the tariff affairs of this country. Before the tariff of 1897 was brought down the government adopted a policy which was never adopted before, of taking the people into council, of going through the length and breadth of the country, and taking evidence, &c., before giving an opinion on the question at issue.
Could there be a more complete answer to the question, why not submit this agreement to the people, than the words of the Minister of Agriculture himself, with reference to a revision of the tariff in 1897, far less radical than the one now proposed In 1905, when another revision, far less radical, was proposed, the government took the opinions of the people in the same way. Why not then take the opinion of the people when we have a fiscal revolution proposed of the character presented in this Bill? M.v hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) said that such a course was never taken before the present government took it. Let me call his attention to this fact. He entirely omitted to mention that when the hon member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), then Minister of Finance, proposed to bring down a re, vision' of the tariff in 1894, a committee composed of Mr. Foster, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Mr. Clark Wallace and Mr. Angers, held meetings throughout the whole Dominion for the purpose of getting the opinion of the people, and such meetings were duly advertised. Yet the Minister of Agriculture says that 1897 was the first time such a commission was put into operation in this country.
In conclusion I will say that unless the people of Canada prefer annexation and consequently absorption by the great country to the south of us, in preference to what has always been our ambition, and what we are rapidly realizing-the dream of a mighty nation within the empire- they will repudiate the present pact.
There are many things impelling us in the direction of annexation, and it is not necessary to make a charge against hon. members opposite of purposely aiming Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
at annexation. But I say that our position, our environment is such, that this agreement, if carried out, must inevitably lead to that end. I say that with our present position, with an imaginary boundary line of 3,000 miles, with a joint commission looking after our waterways, with another looking after our fisheries, and with another joint commission which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) has failed to bring down so far, but which he has threatened to bring down later, and which is apparently going to control our telegraph, express and telephone rates- with all these, and with a population of
8.000.	000 striving with one of 90,000,000 to
100.000.	000, with all these compelling forces, with the natural attraction of small bodies towards large ones, especially when such attraction is facilitated by the fact that the two people are of the same race, language and environment, and with the keen desire of the American people for amalgamation, is there any man so wise and so prophetic as to be able to say that ere many years shall have passed we shall not have lost our identity in the realization of that long cherished dream of our southern neighbours, the annexation of this country to the United States.
Of what avail then the boast of Sir Wilfrid Laurier that if the 19th century belonged to the United States, the 20th will belong to Canada. It looks as if the 19th century not only belonged to the United States but the 20th as well would belong to that country and Canada with it. Long before the sunset and evening star of our 20th century, long before its twilight and evening bell, yes, long before its noontide arrives, we shall as a nation have crossed the bar, lulled to sleep and lured to death, through this insidious pact, into commercial, political and national absorption with the great republic to the south of us, only to add a few more stars to the original thirteen on the banner of the American republic.
For all these reasons, I say that those who have the best interests of the country at heart should come to the conclusion that this Bill ought not to pass.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, House adjourned at 11.25 p.m.

Friday, March 3, 1911. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock.


DRINKING WATER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 131) respecting drinking water.

He said: The Bill I wish to introduce is as follows:

[Stage Direction]
His Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:
1.	This Act may be cited as The Drinking Water Act.
2.	No corporation or municipality shall take any water for drinking purposes from any stj earn or river which lias had sewage or refuse put in it above the intake pipe, without first having such water sterilized.
3.	Any corporation or municipality violating the provisions of section 2 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a ll n & of not exceeding two hundred dollars for each day during which such violation continues.
4 This Act shall come into force by proclamation of the Governor in Council.
My object is to call the attention of the government to the serious condition now existing in this city and to the necessity of taking immediate active steps to remedy that condition and at the same time guard against epidemic in other parts of the country. When I introduced a Bill with reference to sewage, I stated that there was no such thing as an epidemic of typhoid in England or France, but that the disease in these countries was confined to some isolated cases. In that respect these countries are in remarkable contrast with our own. In this city, one out of every 50 inhabitants is down with typhoid; and medical men say that while a great many of the cases are of a mild character, the disease is dangerous even in its mild form. In the pulpit and in other public places in this city, we are told that where typhoid is epidemic, those responsible should be indicted. It must not be forgotten that the sewage which this city discharges into the Ottawa river travels some 700 miles and thus is apt to contaminate the cities of Montreal and Quebec which are not so far distant. It may be objected that this is not a matter which comes under federal jurisdiction, but which belongs to the provinces, but I would point out that in a matter so grave as this, and which may become interprovincial at any moment, this parliament surely ought to have jurisdiction. We all take pride in the city of Ottawa. It is our national capital, and I do not believe there is better air anywhere than one can breathe outside these buildings, but it is a blot on our country that the seat of government should be afflicted with this epidemic. Every day the epidemic is increasing, and I ask the right hon. the leader of the government and the hon. the leader of the opposition whether it is not high time that parliament should do something to eradicate it. Will it not bp wiser to vote Supply and prorogue this House and call an extra session later? As a writer of a very pertinent editorial on
the subject has said, instead of combatting the evil when it comes, it would be better that we should erect such civil and national barriers against it as will prevent its entrance at all. It is with that object that I submit this measure, and I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister to take notice of the serious condition of affairs, much more serious even than it is reported in the press.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 132) to correct certain clerical errors in the French version of the Inland Revenue Act.-Mr. Templeman.

Mr. BURRELL.: I would like to call the attention of the government to a despatch in this morning's ' Citizen ' from Washington to the following effect:


United States Consul General John G.: Foster, at Ottawa, Canada, is already here on a summons from President Taft and a member of the Canadian cabinet is hurrying to Washington, according to a report here, to confer with President Taft concerning possible amendments to the reciprocity treaty.
The summons to Washington was rumoured at the Capitol shortly after midnight and helped to strengthen the view of some of those members of the House who have been all along holding out hope that Congress might not be called into extra session. According to the report in circulation, the Canadian cabinet minister will be here to-day.
Is there any truth in the report?


William Stevens Fielding: No Canadian minister
has gone to Washington.


GOVERNMENT SHIPYARDS AT SOREL- NOTICE OF MOTION AFFECTING MEMBER FOR RICHELIEU.
Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: Mr. Speaker I beg, on behalf and at the request of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin), to give notice to the government and to the hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Lanctot), that, on Monday next, the 6th March instant, before the orders of the day are called, there will be presented, as a matter of privilege, a motion touching malversation and fraudulent misappropriation of public moneys paid out as wages for work done for private individuals and property, at the government shipyards, shops and works at St. Joseph de Sorel and at the city of Sorel, and touching the said hon. member for Richelieu, in connection therewith. I shall, on behalf, and at the request of the hon. member for Champlain, furnish, this afternoon or to-morrow, to the government and to the hon. member for

Richelieu, copies of the motion to be presented in pursuance of the present motion.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS.
George Halsey Perley: The hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames) has asked me to mention to the Minister of Public Works two returns which he has asked for. One of these was ordered on the 14th of December last, and relates to the expenditures on public works since 1880, and the location of wharfs, &c., and one ordered on Uth January last, with reference to government post offices and repairs and some other matters. He would like very much if these returns could be expedited.


William Pugsley: Attention is being given to these Teturns. As the hon. member (Mr. Perley) will understand, it will take a couple of years, in the ordinary course, to get them ready?	.


George Halsey Perley: When does the hon. minister (Mr. Pugsley), -think he will have them reauy ?


William Pugsley: Unless I employ quite a number of additional officials, it will take a very long time. I cannot hope to have them thi-s session. I hope to have them next session.


Haughton Lennox: I would like to call the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham), to an order of the House, of December 5 for a return relating to contracts between the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company and M. P. Davis. There is another return, for which, I suppose, 1 must look to -either the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), or the Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux), concerning the number of public buildings used wholly or in part as -post offices, the cost of such buildings, the revenue, &c. Then, on January 11 last, there w-as an order passed on motion, of the hon. member for St. Antoine, Montreal (Mr. Ames) in which I am indirectly interested. There was another order on January 18 last in reference to aliens in the service of the government residing out of Canada. Also I have been requested to call the attention of the government to the fact that on December 14 on motion of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) two orders were made relating to travelling expenses. I desire also to call the attention of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) to an answer to a question, given in this House, on 27th February last, and reported on page 4-390 of unrevised ' Hansard.' The question -and its answer related to the Indian reserve at Christian Island. I think we have reason to complain of the kind of answers we sometimes get in the House, but not usually Mr. NANTEL.
those from the Minister of -the Interior. In this case, I asked distinctly:
In order to obtain its object, did the government erect a residence for the agent upon the reserve, and at what cost; has the Indian agent ever resided in this house, and by whom is it occupied?
This latter part has not been answered, I think. Another part of this question was:
4.	Where does the Indian agent reside, and when did he last visit the reserve?
I may say to the minister -that I have reason for desiring more specific information than is given. The answeT given is:
He has moved to the reserve, and from information received he was there a few days ago.
I am fold that the Indian agent has not been residing on the island, has never resided in the house referred to in the answer, and that this house has been occupied by somebody else. It i-s possible that since I got the information-a week or ten days ago-this agent has gone to reside upon the island. I understand that he has not resided on the island and that some one else has been occupying this house which was built by the government, with the express understanding, I believe, that the agent should reside on the island to instruct the Indians in agriculture, &c.


Frank Oliver: I beg to assure my Ron. friend (Mr. Lennox) that if the answer is not sufficiently detailed to meet his purpose, it is not on account of any intent to deny him information.


Haughton Lennox: I quite appreciate that.


Frank Oliver: I shall be glad to supplement the answer with the fullest details possible. But we were not able to give all the details asked for and yet answer his question as quickly as he wished.


Haughton Lennox: The minister will look into the matter.


Mr. MURPHY.: As to the return ordered on 14th December .last at the instance of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor), if that is the one relating to the travelling expenses of officials of all the departments, my attention has been drawn to the fact that one department will require about a year to get the information.


Haughton Lennox: It will involve a great deal of expense?


Charles Murphy: The point is that there are a large number of officials, and they are scattered throughout the country.


William Stevens Fielding: Another of the returns referred to by my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox) is in preparation by my department, and I will see that its completion is expedited.


Angus Claude Macdonell: May I ask about a belated return to an order dated December 12, respecting certain information regarding the International Waterways Commission. The information there asked would be of use in discussing the order which the minister has on the paper.


William Pugsley: I shall have inquiry made at once.


George Eulas Foster: I would call the attention of the Minister of Finance to a return to an order of the House dated February 6, 1911, of curator's reports in the case of banks in which curators have been appointed. The first return relates to the Bank of Yarmouth. There .is a note from the department saying that the curator did not make a report to the Department of Finance as to the condition of the bank, but did report to the Canadian Bankers' Association, with regard to the false and deceptive returns made to the department which advice was communicated to the department. In a letter from the Deputy Minister of Finance, dated March 17, 1905, to the president of the Canadian Bankers' Association, a request was made for a report of the bank's affairs. It says: The attached is a copy of the report made. When I come to that it is from the secretary-treasurer's office, Bank of Montreal, March 21, 1905, to Mr. Courtney. It reads:
^Dear Sir,-Referring to your letter of the 17th inst., I have now received a report from the curator of the bank of Yarmouth, of which the following statement is a synopsis:
I did not ask for a synopsis of the report and the Act does not contemplate that the Department of Finance, or the House shall be put off with synopses. There is attached a page of typewriting giving the synoptical report. If we are to have anything we should have what the law allows, which is a full report.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure if there i3 such a report in the department we have presented it. I cannot answer offhand, but in view of what my hon. friend has said I will have the matter investigated and see where the omission is if there be one.


George Eulas Foster: If there is no report the minister has a right to one.


Robert Laird Borden: The statute says that the curator shall make all returns and reports and give all information touching the affairs of the bank which the minister requires of him.


William Stevens Fielding: I shall be very happy to look into the matter.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: I wish to ask about the following returns: Order of December 14, 1910, showing what ministers abroad in 1908, 1909 and 1910 with their business and expenses. Order of December 14, 1910, showing total payments made by the government to the Eclipse Furniture Company, the Office Specialty Company and Ahearn & Soper. Order of January li, of payments made to Dussault & Lemieux. There is also a very belated return dated March 22, 1909, showing the names of villages, towns and cities in the various provinces where public buildings have been erected in certain years.


William Pugsley: Those in my department are being expedited, but a reference to the orders will show how voluminous a number of the returns will be, and, of course, the motions have to take their turn. I cannot promise my hon. friend just how soon the returns will be presented, but there will be no unnecessary delay so far as my department is concerned.


RECIPROCITY-ATTITUDE OF DAIRYMEN'S ASSOCIATIONS.
Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG (E. Lambton).: I ask the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to withdraw a statement made on February 16 last in the course of some remarks that I was presenting to the House. I was discussing the position of the cheese and butter market when the hon. gentleman made use of this statement:
Does the hon. gentleman remember that the dairy associations of eastern and western Ontario unanimously desire that this treaty sliould go into effect ?
I have before me a letter from a director of the Western Dairymen's Association, and he distinctly and emphatically states that the Minister of Customs is mistaken in making that statement. He refers to the statement of the minister as published at page 3826 and says:
This statement is absolutely incorrect so far as the Dairymen's Association of Western Ontario is concerned. I am a director of that association, and have been for twenty years. 1 was present in Stratford when this question was introduced. We consulted every director and officer of the association, and unanimously agreed not to permit the question to go on the programme of the afternoon for discussion.
He closes with an emphatic denial of anything of that nature being discussed there that afternoon by the Dairymens' Association. I will ask the minister, in the face of that statement, to withdraw the statement he made in this House on the 16th of February.


William Paterson: I think I said that I had read in the newspapers, when in Washington, an account of the meeting. I do not see that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Armstrong) himself says that no such discussion took place there. I have no desire to misrepre-

sent the facts or state anything that I do not believe. If I have said anything that is not in accordance with the facts, I can only say that I regret having done so. I did it in good faith. I read in a newspaper a report of proceedings I think at Stratford, in which the subject was discussed and in which reciprocity in dairy products was approved. Whether it was after the association had adjourned or not I do not know. I gave what I understood to be the case and still believe to be the case. If I have stated anything not in accordance with the facts, of course I regret it, as I do not wish to do anything of that kind.
SUPPLY-ATTACHMENT	OF CIVIL


SERVANTS' SALARIES.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. A. M. BEAUPARLANT (St. Hya-cinthe).: I would .beg to make a few remarks on a matter which hitherto, owing to the rules of the House and other causes, I have not had a chance to place before parliament. The question I wish to discuss is whether the salaries of prominent public officers are to be continued under special privilege conditions or whether they should be placed on the same conditions as the salaries of other people with regard to the payment of debts. From the first occasion on which I introduced this Bill into the House, I never pretended that I was advancing a new idea by attempting to place all debtors on the same footing, by compelling those who earn high salaries to pay their debts just as those earning lower salaries are compelled to pay theirs. This is so evident that no one can to-day claim to have been the first to think of it. Many members in the past have advocated a like measure before this House, among them the Solicitor General, the ex-member for Lisgar, Mr. Richardson, and the ex-member for Laval, I think, now the Hon. Mr. Justice Fortin. Whatever may be the result of the discussion of my proposition, I cannot claim the merit of having introduced by it any new idea before this House. What is now the position of Dominion public officials with regard to debts? Their salary is not liable to attachment, seizure or garnishment, while the salary of any other debtor is. There is no law allowing an attachment of the salary of a Dominion civil servant. Article 599, paragraph 9, of the Code of Civil Procedure of the province of Quebec, and the unwritten but well-known principle of English common law, which prevails in all other provinces and which was affirmed in many cases, notably in the case of Fraser & McArthur, reported at page 165, of the Nova Scotia Mr. PATERSON.
' Digest,' a legal work due to our distinguished friend and colleague the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Congdon), who was at that time a lawyer practising in Nova Scotia, join together to make such an exception in the case of a Dominion official. My proposal now is that we should pass a law striking out such an exception. If I may be allowed to make a suggestion to the government it would be that they might take this measure up and enact it into law. For the purposes which I have here outlined, I would propose to add to the Civil Service Act, 1908, the two following subsections, immediately after section 47:
47a. All moneys or salaries due or accruing due to any person employed by the government of Canada shall be liable to attachment in each province of Canada, according to the laws and rules of procedure in force in such province.
47b. The attachment or garnishee summons or order may be served on the minister, deputy minister, chief officer, secretary or assistant secretary of the department in which the debtor is employed, or on the chief officer or clerk of such department or branch thereof if the debtor is employed outside of the city of Ottawa.
It should not be necessary for me to make any argument in support of this proposition. I trust that it will be accepted if it is as good a proposition in principle as I contend it is. I might remind the House that five years ago we had no law to prevent strikes and lock-outs. Since then we have passed a law to deal with that subject, and the people generally are satisfied with it. The people have derived some benefit from it and our example is to be followed by other countries, namely, South Africa and the United States. This goes to prove that a law, although new, may be a good one. Australia passed an indirect, but very effective, law during the session of 1901-2, which will be found at page 339 of the statutes of the Commonwealth of Australia for that year. I quote from that law the following:
1.	If an officer is on an indictment or presentment convicted of any offence he shall be deemed to have forfeited his office and shall thereupon cease to perform his duties or receive his salary.
That is a preliminary remark.
2.	If the estate of an officer is sequestrated either voluntarily or compulsorily for the benefit of his creditors, such officer shall apply as soon as he may legally do so to a court of insolvency for a certificate of discharge. If it appears to such court that the applicant has been guilty of fraud, dishonourable conduct or extravagance, such court shall direct the clerk of the court thereupon to report the same to the minister or permanent head or chief officer of the department in which such officer is employed. If such officer does not

apply as aforesaid for such certificate of discharge or if he applies and it appears from the report that such officer has been guilty of fraud, dishonourable conduct or extravagance, such officer may be dismissed from the public service or reduced to a lower division class or grade therein or fined, reprimanded or otherwise punished by order of the Governor General.


PENALTIES.
[Stage Direction]
67. On receiving notice of any pecuniary penalty imposed upon any officer under the authority of this Act the officer who pays the salary of the officer so punished shall deduct the amount thereof from such salary.
With the permission of the House, I will quote.a resolution which was passed on the 25th May, 1910, at the meeting of Federation of the Chambers of Commerce of Quebec, held in Montreal, and which reads as follows:

Mr.   BOUCHARD@: I shall be short, for I am convinced that every one here believes, as I do, that civil servants who generally earn a good salary should be, like all others, obliged to pay their debts.
The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe, Mr. Beauparlant, has devoted his attention to this question in the House of Commons where he introduced a Bill to that effect. That Bill will be again submitted at the next session and our representative expects that it will carry. Therefore, it is expedient, I think that the Federation of Boards of Trade should pass a resolution in favour of the Bill and advising the local boards of trade to meet their respective representatives and to endeavour to have them vote in favour of the Bill.
I beg to move that it be resolved that the Federation of Boards of Trade of the province of Quebec emphatically endorse the principle of the Bill presented by the member for St. Hyacinthe to render the salaries of federal officers liable to seizure and that they prompt parliament to pass the necessary legislation to that end the very next session.
Mr. AQUILA JASMIN, from Lachine. 1 second the motion.
Everybody:	Carried.
I will also read the following communication from the secretary of the Montreal Board of Trade:


Mr.   A.@: Beauparlant, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons, Ottawa.
Dear Sir, Reply to yours of 8th ult., has been delayed by reason of the adjournment of the council meetings over the Christmas holidays, but I now beg to inform you, as follows:
First, that the council objects to the system of garnishment for debt.
Second, that as the system of garnishment for debt exists it heartily approves of your Bill, which places Dominion civil servants in this respect, on the same level as other citizens.
I am dear Sir,
Yours truly,
GEO. HA DRILL, Secretary.
I have received this statement from the secretary of La Chambre du Commerce of Quebec:
Quebec, February 1st., 1911.
A. M. Beauparlant, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa, Ont.
Sir,-I have been directed to inform you that the Quebec Board of Trade are entirely favourable to the idea of that excellent Bill which you have introduced in the House of Commons, providing for the garnishment of part of the salaries of civil servants under the control of the federal authorities. The immunity enjoyed by these officers in respect to the seizure of the salaries coming to them gives rise to grievous abuses, to shameful impositions on the good nature of business men and other creditors, on the part of debtors in bad faith, and it is certainly high time that the unfairness of such a procedure should he recognized and that means should he taken to safeguard to a certain extent the interests of bona fide and deceived creditors. You may rest assured that you have the sympathy and moral support of all business men and particularly of the members of the Board of Trade.
Your obedient servant,
T. LEVASSEUR, Secretary.
The ' Mail and Empire ' of the 3rd December last published the following editorial note:
Civil servants have in the past been debtor-proof. Owe what they might their salaries could not be garnisheed. Mr. Beauparlant, one of the Quebec members, has introduced a Bill to change all this, tinder his measure salaries of civil servants can be attached precisely as those of private individuals may be. Officials who pay their way will not object to a Bill of this kind. The only possible objectors would he non-payers, and their opposition is an argument in favour of the change. Why the public officers have been exempt from the law for so long is a mystery.
The Kingston ' Standard ' of the same date contained the following:


SALARIES OF CIVIL SERVANTS.
[Stage Direction]
A Bill has been introduced into the Ottawa House to amend the Civil Service Act so that the salaries of the gentlemanly, but often impecunious employees of the government shall be subject to garnishment. It may or may not become law; but there is no doubt of this fact-that the prayers of every retail m.ti chant in the country will go up nightly i n favour of it; for of all the dead beats that ever swindled a tradesman the civil servant dead heat, as he is seen in certain outside cities
[Stage Direction]
It is never in the city where the newspaper is published.
-is the worst. The salaries of these men have not hitherto been subject to garnishment because it has been considered ' contrary to public policyJ to allow this to be done. In some mysterious way that no one can find out, the business of the country will suffer, according to this theory, if these dead beats
[Stage Direction]
aro made to pay their debts by having: their salaries garnisheed. This is simply a theory borrowed from some older lands where the civil servants were the sons, cousins or some other connection of the parties in power and were by this means protected from having to pay their honest debts, when confiding tradesmen trusted them and relied upon their promises. 'Contrary to public policy ' forsooth! What a hoary fiction that is! As if the pub-lrc good would not be better served by making these men pay their debts like every honest citizen and live up to their contracts.
To emphasize the need for this legislation it -would be well if every retail merchants association in the country were to send down a deputation to Ottawa to urge the passing of the Bill.
We in Kingston here will, it is true, not be affected by the Bill, because here our civil servants pay their legitimate debts, but for the principle of the thing we should all contend, namely, that in the eye of the law and in respect to their debts, civil servants are and should be like other individuals. Other cities_ are not so happy in this respect as in Kingston.
The Peterborough ' Examiner * of December 12, says:
Mr. Beauparlant, M.P., for St. Hyacinthe, has introduced into parliament a Bill which should pass into law. Heretofore civil servants at Ottawa have enjoyed a remarkable exemption. Their salaries were not attachable for debt. They might run bills for groceries, dry goods, and what not, and they were uncolleetable by process of law. Under the proposed law the civil servants are tc be legislated into the ranks of ordinary honesty, and respectability. The old law of exemption for responsibility for debts incurred was a premium on dishonesty. There are civil servants by the thousands in Ottawa and it stands to reason that practical freedom from paying honest debt must have exer cised a bad effect upon merchants and business. In the ordinary course of things collection of debts is difficult enough; and this difficulty adds to the difficulty, of business men making ends meet. Pew realize bow much the payment of even a small obligation exercices a cumulative effect; a sum like, say, ten dollars, goes the rounds, so to speak, and can possibly, in a hundred cases, help to make up an amount necessary to meet an obligation, and effect a balance with the bank. Pay-as-you-go is a splendid lubricant for the wheels of business, and pay promptly when you don't pay down, is the next best thing.
I beg to quote from a letter which I have received, the following:
A. M. Beauparlant, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Let me congratulate you in connection with the Bill which you are introducing and which provides for the garnishment of the salaries of Dominion civil servants and does away with a remnant of the oppressive privileges of feudal times.	*
The salary of the poor workingman may he seized, while hands must he kept off the salaries of these wealthy gentlemen who earn Mr. BEAUPAELANT.
as much as $1,000 or $2,000 per annum, and avoid paying their just debts.
That was a dark spot and an anomaly, an anachronism in this democratic era of ours.
I have found in my protracted career, that this exemption was practically a safeguard for prodigality and dishonesty.
You are doing a meritorious act and the country should he grateful to you for so doing.
I enclose a letter of approval from Sir Wilfrid Laurier, to whom I had submitted the matter.
Please accept, together with the compliments of the season, the assurance of the high esteem in which I hold you.
(Signed):	G. Z. MAYEAND,
Notary.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the expressions of opinion I have read to the House are opportune to this discussion, and that something ought to be done to remedy the evil now existing. It is needless to remind the House that it is only just and honest that every one should pay his debts; it is also needless to say that most of the Dominion officials are faithful to their obligations and do not need any law or legal rule to compel them to pay their debts, the moral rule being sufficient. However, a certain number of these officials refuse to pay their just debts, although in a position to do so, and some of them even go so far as to insult their creditors when they are asked for what they honestly owe. Why the salary of a workingman who earns $30 or $40 a month should be liable to garnishee and the salary of the Dominion public official who earns from $100 to $500 a month is not so liable, is a discrimination which ought not be suffered to longer exist. Either an end should be put to the system of attaching small salaries or the same attachment should be allowed on high salaries. We are all aware that the operation of the law allowing or prohibiting the seizure of the salaries of those not in the Dominion service is within the sphere of the provincial legislature, but, the allowing or disallowing of the attachment of the salaries of employees of this government is within the purview of this parliament, and I trust that in the near future this parliament will put an end to the present system of exemption. Why should any class of men be granted such a privilege; why above all should the high salaries-and generally speaking the salaries of the Dominion public servants, may be considered comparatively high salaries- why should the high salaries be exempt from seizure while the low salaries of other wage earners are not. I expect to be told in reply that the system I advocate would create disturbance and inconvenience in the different departments by compelling some chief officials to go to the courts from time to time to make the required statement as to the amount due to the official in default, but the same inconvenience is

now experienced by banking institutions, by municipal and provincial institutions, by railways, and by all kinds of industries, and the people prefer to suffer this inconvenience so that by complying with the requirements of the law, they may ensure that the principles of honesty shall prevail. Should not the Dominion government which is the chief institution in this country give to all others an example of fairness and honesty by compelling their officials to keep faith with their creditors. There is a department of justice specially created for the purpose of causing the principles of honesty to prevail in the whole community-and allow me to state en passant, Mr. Speaker, that the Department of Justice could not have at its head a more able, or a more devoted man than the present minister-and in conjunction with the departments of the attorneys general of the different provinces their mission is to make honesty and justice prevail by safeguarding the rights and properties, as well as the lives and liberties of the citizens. Why should not the several departments of this government be ready to sacrifice their convenience to some extent if need be, in order that principles of honesty and justice should prevail among their employees.
The new system would have some inconveniences, we shall, perhaps, be told, but there is a reply, I trust, to every objection. The new system would be fair to the creditors, and would be desirable for the public officials themselves. It would be an advantage for the good ones, whom the present system does not help'as they deserve, and also for the others, who, precisely because they rely upon this privilege, are led to incur obligations beyond their means. I expect to be told, also, that government employees, on account of the deference due to authority, ought to be free from the rules applied to other citizens. Sir, I am a Liberal, and I believe in equality and in the responsibilities resulting from equality, rather than in privilege. When public officers are expected to be true to their promises and faithful to their obligations in business matters, this is the best guarantee that they will be true also to the government which employs and pays them. I believe that the community are not made for the government, or for the chief officers of state, but that the government and the chief officers of state are made for the community. with all due consequences of that fact. I may be looked upon as not being up to date in saying that I still believe in the possibility of one condition and one rule' of conduct for all men living in the same country, but I feel some pride in the hope that I may be of some use in that respect to the community in which I live. If the government cannot do something this
year in the direction that I have proposed, and if I am still here next year, I will bring the same measure down again, because I think it is fair to all, and above all because it is honest.
Mr. GUSTAVE BOYER (Vaudreuil).: 
Mr. J. P. TURCOTTE (Quebec county).: 
Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: (Translation). I did not intend speaking on this question, but after listening to certain remarks made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Boyer), concerning the manner in which some contracts are carried out, I deem it my duty to say a word.
A few years since, as hon. gentlemen will remember, the House discussed again and again the desirability ot changing the practice then followed in regard to boarding the men working for the Department of Marine. That question came up several times, and finally the unanimous opinion of the House seemed to favour "the idea of the department granting a contract to some employee who would undertake to board the men and all the passengers sojourning on the vessels. The outcome was altogether satisfactory. We concluded with the stewards on the various vessels an arrangement whereby we paid them an amount of 50 cents per head per day for the men composing the crew, and 60 cents for the officers. The result has been most satisfactory. I received the other day a report showing that last year a saving of several thousand dollars had been affected in this way.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil has given to understand that in one particular instance the steward had not paid for the supplies received from various points. I am very sorry to hear so. I only wish the hon. member were in his seat just now, and I regret he has been obliged to leave the House, temporarily. However, he will read what I said in 'Hansard.' Had he been here, I would have asked him to give me the name of that man, and if he is still in our employ, I will surely see to it that
these suppliers are paid, otherwise he will not be kept on.
As regards the Bill introduced by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Beau-parlant), I agree with him. I know, and it has been stated to me on several occasions, that civil servants as a rule are in favour of such a measure. When I say that civil servants are in favour of such a measure I mean those who have no reason to fear the putting in force of such an enactment. I know that in the province of Ontario, in Ottawa, for instance, the same difficulties are not met with as in the province of Quebec, as here, the law provides a means whereby a creditor may to a certain extent, and in an indirect manner, lay hands on the salary of the government employee.
As regards the province of Quebec, it is a different matter. We have a law providing that salaries of local government employees may be garnisheed not wholly, but in part, as stated a moment ago by the hon. member for Quebec county (Mr. Tur-cotte). It is much to be desired that such a measure should be voted by this parliament in respect to Dominion government employees so as to oblige them to pav their just debts.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: We are indebted to my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Beaupar-lant) for the great attention he has given this matter' and I personally feel certainly under obligation to him for having seen fit to address the Chair in the English tongue, although, judging by the facility he has displayed in that language, that is no trouble to him. At the outset I wish to say that, in my ideas on this subject, I am not actuated by any feeling of sympathy for the civil servant who does not pay his debts. To pay his debts is a man's first duty, if indeed he toe not acting contrary to his duty in incurring debts, But none the less, I must say that I look upon a proposition to change the law regarding the garnishment of the salaries of civil servants as one of very dcaibtful expediency indeed. The question is simply one of expediency, and the condition of the law -which now prevents the seizure of the salary of civil servants is one which exists, not out of any consideration for these employees, but simply and wholly out of consideration for the public interests. It is entirely from that point of view that I question the desirability of making the change advocated by my hon. friend. I have seen it stated in legal works, as the reason for this rule of law, that the King cannot be brought into court against his own will, and, of course, we all recognize that it is the prerogative of the King to be sued only with his own assent upon the advice of his attorney general. That prero-


Arthur Meighen: Not having had any notice that the subject introduced by the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Beauparlant) was to be discussed this afternoon, I come before the House without any preparation for the present debate. Nor would I have risen had not the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) in his treatment of the case, in my judgment, departed from those principles of common sense which usually distinguish him in the application of legal formulas to the practical affairs of life. I listened very carefully to the defence of the present system which the Minister of Justice brought forward, and I must say that I fail to recognize any objection offered by him to the change which would not apply with equal force to many if not all the classes of cases in which salaries are gar-nishable at the present time. The Minister of Justice states that the present rule is based on the doctrine laid down by Baron Parke, that the salary of the civil servant is in the nature of a gratuity and that it is made for the purpose of enabling that servant to render to the public the greatest possible service in the capacity in which
he acts, and to prevent him from being harassed by creditors or others to the detriment of the public service. To that statement of the doctrine, I have no exception to take. That doubtless is correct. But wherein does it apply? Does not the same doctrine, in so far as it affects this argument, apply to the servant of the railway companies, the servant of the provincial government-both of whose salaries are garnishable at the present time. The salary paid to any one may very well be put on the same basis as that laid down by Baron Parke as a matter of legal doctrine. But the whole question before the House is: What is the interest of common honesty and of equal rights among not only civil servants but all servants throughout the country. It may be that the civil servant is in a better position to offer free and unhampered service to the public if he is hedged about by the wall-the artificial wall-which now protects him from the ordinary process of garnishment. But I cannot see why the public as a corporate body has any higher rights than the ordinary citizen in this regard. It seems to me that the public as a body politic is in the same position as the Canadian Pacific railway, or any other company, or any private employer. Why should it be otherwise? Is not the Canadian Pacific Railway Company entitled to the very best possible service from the employees whom it pays? They are entitled to that just in the same sense as is the government of Canada. Is not a farmer on the plains entitled to the best possible service which the body and brain of his hired servant is able to give him? Certainly he is. The same rule applies throughout our commercial life. Why should we single out the government and say that, because it is stronger or represents more people that it is, in any higher or loftier sense, entitled to the unhampered efforts of its servants than any other employers in the community? I see no distinction so far as the interests of the country are concerned.
And why is the civil servant entitled to protection? The minister says he has no sympathy with the civil servant who runs into debt. That, doubtless, is just as true of the civil servant as of any other servant. But the minister says also:	I have no
sympathy with the creditor who allows the civil servant to run into his debt. The minister also said-let me do him ample justice-the creditor who permits the civil servant to run an account knows the position of that civil servant, knows his income, and consequently is warned beforehand, and incurs the credit at his own 'eril. That is equally true throughout the whole Tange of our commercial life. It is true of the employees of the great companies; it is true of the labouring man.

But what is the difference? These men do not incur the debt all with one creditor; if they did there would be some force in the argument of the Minister of Justice. But they go from one man to another; they concurrently run bills here and there, the Same as other classes of servants all over the country. There are the same exceptions in the matter of frugality in the civil service as anywhere else.	_
How is one creditor to know that he is the only one, and even if he permits the civil servant to incur only a modest expenditure, he knows not, but what that man at some other store, or with some other creditor is doing the same thing as with him. Consequently there is absolutely no distinction, the creditor is no more on his guard in this case than in any other and he is liable to be innocently mulcted. The law has never denied to the creditor in any other case where he permits a man to live beyond his means, the right of recourse, that man has all the weapons for the collection of his debts he would have had, if he had acted paternally with reference to that debtor and told him he was not .to be permitted to buy what he could not pay for. He has all the redress possible in that case, and why should he be denied it in this? It seems to me that when the minister comes thoroughly to consider all the aspects of the case, he will not permit his mind to be warped by legal doctrines which are after all, only a relic of days gone by, and which are being one by one overruled at this time in behalf of the broader principles of common sense and equal Tights. The minister referred to the civil servant in another aspect. He said it was quite true that in so far as garnishment is concerned, we protect him, we say that his salary is not to be garnisheed. We also say he is not to be allowed to assign it. In both of these regards, I say he should have the same rights and should be restricted by the same methods as any other servant. In our .provinces certain rights to assign not only of civil servants, but of all servants, have been very seriously restricted. That has been done in what was believed to be the public interest, but no distinction was drawn between the civil servant and any other servant, the restriction applying to all, and was intended to guard the improvident and particularly those who who have wives and families, from 'anticipation of their means. The minister said we should protect the civil servant in the matter of garnishment, excuse in other regards he is restricted, he is not permitted to strike. A moment's reflection will surely convince the very clear mind of the Minister of Justice, that that is not a strong argument. Surely the right of striking is not a right which the civil servant can complain of being deprived of. It seems to me noth-Mr. MEIGHEN.
ing but the use of words to say that the civil servant suffers anything by the provision of our law, which forbids him to strike. The civil servant now has in his possession all the weapons that would be of any use to him in securing .an advance of his salary, and the weapon of striking would be absolutely worthless to him. I think the civil servant is better equipped in this way than the ordinary employee. I say, let the civil servant of Canada suffer garnishment if he goes behind in the same way as any other man, and then we shall have advanced at least one step further in the progress of democracy in Canada.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I wish rto heartily endorse the sentiment just expressed by my hon. friend from Portage, who has, to my mind, covered the whole range of this question, and I congratulate my hon. friend from St. Hyacinthe (Mr. Beaupariant) for bringing this matter up. The Minister of Justice has argued in his usually careful and lucid manner, but I fear the Minister of Justice is arguing from the standpoint of a lawyer, who wants to maintain his case on account of the precedents. There is no doubt of the force of the arguments in the decision of Baron Parke quoted, but that does not make it irrevocable. I cannot understand why a civil 'Servant should not be placed in exactly the same position as any other labourer, or servant or employee. He is as well paid, if not better paid than other men doing similar work for outside employers. He may be under one disadvantage, in that- he is a member of a class and has not the chance for advances in salary that he would have in a big corporation or employment in the ordinary business of the country. I do not believe to any great extent in the doctrine of the right of the creditor .to garnishee the wages of any man. I believe it is against the best interests of the civil servant himself to know that he is subject to this exemption. It may be that he and his family are anxious to shine in social circles, . and his security from having his salary attached, I believe, may cause him to run into excesses that he would not otherwise indulge in, and this may have placed'many of these people in the unfortunate position in which they find themselves. I believe this should be changed, and that if you put the civil servant exactly on a parity with every other labouring man or man working for a salary in the different provinces, and made him entirely subject to the jurisdiction of the provincial authorities with reference to garnishment, it would be to his advantage.


HAGUE ARBITRATION, ATLANTIC FISHERIES.
Mr. C. JAMESON (Digby).: A few days ago, a resolution standing in my name, call-

ing for the bringing down of certain correspondence which led up to the settlement of the North Atlantic Fisheries case for reference to the Hague Tribunal, was passed. I do not think it should have been necessary for a member to ask for the bringing down of this correspondence, because, it seems to me, the subject matter of that case was of sufficient importance for the government to have laid before the House all the information in their possession. So far the only information which they have brought down, printed and distributed is contained in a book issued a few days ago containing the award and some fishery regulations recently based on the award.
The Hague Award, when published on September 7, 1910, was hailed with a great deal of satisfaction by the government of Great Britain and the government of Canada, and was considered of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a reference in the speeches from the Throne at the opening of parliament in Canada, the opening of parliament in England and the opening of the legislature in the province of Nova Scotia. It was also considered of so much importance that the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Ayles-worth) has made sundry journeys up and down the country for the purpose of enlarging upon its virtues and expatiating upon its merits. One important feature in connection with this award, however, is that it does not apply to the Bay of Fundy, probably the largest bay in the western hemisphere and certainly, from the standpoint of the fisheries, the most important. Although the award makes a very important declaration respecting international law with regard to bays, the Canadian fishermen find themselves debarred from the benefit of that declaration with respect to the Bay of Fundy.
I may be permitted, Sir, to trace very briefly the history, leading up to the submission of this question by Great Britain and the United States to the international court of arbitration at The Hague. In 1908 an arbitration convention ot treaty was entered into between Great Britain and the United States of America. That was signed at Washington on April 4, 1908, and ratified on the 4th of June in the same year. The first article of the convention provided that differences which might arise relating to the interpretation of treaties existing between the two contracting parties, and which it had not been possible to settle by diplomacy, should be referred to the permanent court of arbitration at The Hague. The second article provided that in the case of a reference to The Hague a special agreement defining clearly the matter in dispute and the scope of the powers of the arbitrators should be entered into and the same rrticle goes on to state:
That His Majesty s government reserving the right before concluding a special agreement ill any matter affecting the interests of a selfgoverning dominion of the British Empire to obtain the concurrence therein of the government of that dominion.
And it also provides that no such special agreement shall be binding until confirmed by an exchange of notes between the two contracting parties. The third article merely relates to the ratification of the treaty, and the fourth and last article provides that this convention is concluded for a period of five years, in other words, until June 4, 1913.
On January 27, 1909, the special agreement under which the reference regarding the North Atlantic fisheries was made, was entered into between Great Britain and the United States, and signed at Washington on the date which I have mentioned, by Mr. Bryce, the British Ambassador, on behalf of Great Britain, and Mr. Root, Secretary of State for the United States, on behalf of the United States. Question 5, of the questions which were to be submitted to The Hague Tribunal under this special agreement, reads as follows :
From where must be measured the 'three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours' referred to in the said article.
The article referred to was article 1 of the old convention, or treaty of 1818, between Great Britain and the United States with reference to the fisheries. The feature particularly referred to in article 1 was contained in the following words:
And the United States hereby renounce forever, any liberty heretofore enjoyed or claimed by the inhabitants thereof, to take, dry, or cure fish on, or within three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours of His Britannic Majesty's dominions in America not included within the above-mentioned limits.
' The above mentioned limits,' were in treaty waters, and did not affect the Bay of Fundy.
Under this question 5, referred to the court of arbitration at The Hague, one would have supposed that the exclusive rights of British subjects in the Bay of Fundy were to be settled. The question as fwi 11 be seen, embraced all bays: no bays were excluded from its scope, and it would be reasonable to suppose that the question as to all bays on the Atlantic coast in His Majesty's North American possessions would be settled, with regard to fisheries.
Section 4, on page 20, of the award of the tribunal, relates to the extraordinary contention of the United States with respect to these bays. It reads:
4. It has been further contended by the United States that the renunciation applies



only to bays six miles or less in width 'inter fauces terrae,' those bays only being territorial bays, because the three mile rule is. as shown by this treaty, as principle of international law applicable to coasts and should bo strictly and systematically applied to bays.
But the tribunal did not concur in that View. It went on to state in its answer to that question what 1 shall now read:
But the tribunal is unable to agree with this contention.
(a)	Because admittedly the geographical character of a bay contains conditions which ccncern the interests of the territorial sovereign to a more intimate and important extent than do those connected with the open coast. Thus conditions of national and territorial integrity, of defence, of commerce and of industry are all vitally concerned and with thr control of the bays penetrating the national coast line. This interest varies, speaking generally in proportion to the penetration inland of the bay; but as no principle of international law recognizes any specified relation between the concavity of the bay and tho requirements for control by the territorial sovereignty, this tribunal is unable to qualify by the application of any new principle its interpretation of the treaty of 1818 as excluding bays in general from the strict and systematic application of the three mile rule; nor can this tribunal take cognizance ill this connection of other principles concerning the territorial sovereignty over bays such as ten mile or twelve mile limits of exclusion based on international acts subsequent to the treaty of 1818 and relating to ccasts of a different configuration and conditions of a different character;
(b)	Because the opinion of jurists and publicists quoted in the proceedings conduce to tin opinion that speaking generally the three mile rule should not be strictly and systematically applied to bays;
(c)	Because the treaties referring to these coasts, antedating the treaty of 1818, made special provisions as to bays, such as the treaties of 1686 and 1713 between Great Britain and France, and especially the treaty of 1778 between the United States and France. Likewise Jay's treaty of 1791, Art. 25, distinguished bays from the space ' within cannon-shot of the coast ' in regard to the right of seizure in times of war. If the proposed treaty of 1806 and the treaty of 1818 contained no disposition to that effect, the explanation may be found in the fact that they first extended the marginal belt to five miles, and also in the circumstance that the American proposition of 1818 in that respect was not limited to 'bays,' but extended to 'chambers formed by headlands' and to 'five marine miles from a right line from one headland to another,' a proposition which in the times of the Napoleonic wars would have affected to a very large extent the operations of the British navy;
(d)	Because it has not been shown by the documents and correspondence in evidence here that the application of the three mile rule to bays was present to the minds of the negotiators in 1818 and they could not reasonably have been expected either to presume it or to provide against its presumption:
(e)	Because it is difficult to explain tho Mr. JAMESON.
words in Art. Ill of the treaty under interpretation ' country . . . together -with its bays, harbours and creeks ' otherwise than that all bays without distinction as to their width were, in the opinion of the negotiators, part of the territory;
(f)	Because from the information before this tribunal it is evident that the three mile rule is not applied to bays strictly or systematically either by the United States or by any other power;
(g)	It has been recognized by the United Slates that bays stand apart, and that in respect of them territorial jurisdiction may be exercised farther than the marginal belt in the case of Delaware bay by the report of the United States Attorney General of May 19, 1793, and the letter of Mr. Jefferson to Mr. Genet, of November 8, 1793, declares the bays of the United States generally to be, ' as being landlocked, within the body of the United States.'
Now, Sir, if this doctrine had been applied to the Bay of Fundy it would have been declared territorial waters with exclusive rights to Canadian fishermen, and this doctrine would have applied to it, but for the so called understanding by which the Bay of Fundy was shut out. I read from the report of the award of the tribunal, the last clause in answer to question 5:
It is understood that nothing in these rules refers either Jo the Bay of Fundy considered as a whole apart from its bays and creeks or as to the innocent passage through the Gut of Canso, which were excluded by the agreement made by exchange of notes between Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bryce, dated February 21, 1909, and March 4, 1909; or to Conception bay, which was provided for by the decision of the privy council in the case of the Direct United States Cable Company vs. the Anglo-American Telegraph Company, in which decision the United States have acquiesced.
Here suddenly we find that the whole situation had been changed and instead of the Bay of Fundy being dealt with under question 5, it was expressly excluded toy some understanding or some mysterious subsidiary agreement which was entered into. I would like to ask the minister how it was that this was done, and why it was done? At whose instance and upon whose advice was it done, and who is it that is going to take the responsibility for the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy from the operation of this award? At this particular moment, and before I proceed further, I would ask the minister to give an answer to that question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certain correspondence of many years ago between the United States government and the imperial government dealt with the question of the Bay of Fundy, and later there was an exchange of notes on the matter between Mr. Bryce and the United States Secretary of State.


Clarence Jameson: What correspondence does the minister allude to?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is correspondence which took place in the year 1843. Had I been aware that my hon. friend would bring up this matter I would have had this correspondence here.


Clarence Jameson: I gave notice last night.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman did not mention the Bay of Fundy especially.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: What we want to know is whether there has been any arrangement made with reference to the Bay of Fundy excluding it from the treaty?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I tried to explain when addressing the House on this subject on the 2nd December last, the position with regard to the Bay of Fundy, as fully as I was able to. When the difficulties first arose between the United States and Nova Scotia in regard to this treaty as early as 1840, or before that year, the principal subject of the difficulty seemed to be the fishing by United States fishermen in the Bay of Fundy. The legislature of Nova Scotia insisting that the Bay of Fundy was, notwithstanding its size, within the renunciation made by the United States in the treaty of 1818, addressed the imperial authorities upon that subject. The matter was referred to the law officers of the Crown in England and they supported the contention of the Attorney General of Nova Scotia and delivered their opinion that the Bay of Fundy had been renounced by the treaty of 1818. The matter continued to be one of much agitation diplomatically between the United States and Great Britain and finally it was closed in the year 1845, I think in the month of March, by a despatch from Lord Aberdeen the foreign secretary, to the United States minister at the Court of St. James, in which Lord Aberdeen stated that while maintaining the legal right of Great Britain to exclude United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy they would relax their right so far as that bay was concerned. Ever since then the bay has been treated as open to the fishermen of the United States, and it has been so treated by both parties. When the arrangement for submitting these difficulties to arbitration at the Hague was under verbal discussion at Washington in January, 1909, Mr. Root as representing the United States said as though it were a matter of course-and I think using these very words:	Of course nothing in this
submission is to affect one way or the other the position of the Bay of Fundy, or of what was termed ' Innocent Passage through the Gut of Canso.' That was made a sine qua non of the reference to the arbi-145}
tration of the Hague at all. The contention was:	The question of the Bay of
Fundy has been settled between ourselves and Great Britain now more than 60 years ago, and there is no question of reopening it. It was at one time proposed that a clause to that effect should be inserted in the agreement of submission to arbitration, but it was thought better-indeed I think it was my own suggestion-that instead of putting it upon the face of the agreement to arbitrate, informal notes stating the understanding in that respect should be exchanged between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Root. Such letters were exchanged in either Fobruary or March of 1909 . They were before the tribunal, and it is the circumstance of their having been so exchanged that leads to the tribunal making the observation in the award which the hon. gentleman has read, that it is understood that nothing in the rules which they were then suggesting should be taken to refer either to the Bay of Fundy or to the Gut of Canso, which were excluded by these notes of the 21st February and the 4th of March, 1909.


Clarence Jameson: The minister has given a pTetfy lengthy answer to my question, and I may say with all deference, that it is very unfortunate that he should express this view, as also the view he expressed on the 2nd December last, upon this same subject. I do not think, in the first place, that the correspondence that took place between Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett in 1845 can possibly bear out the extreme construction placed upon it, and the extreme claim founded upon it by the United States.
I also think that the treaty of 1908 between Great Britain and the United States made special provision for a settlement of matters in dispute, or on which there was any doubt, in regard to subjects1 of this kind. The minister himself, on the 27th of January, 1909, when this case was ..being settled, says he suggested that there should be an interchange of correspondence, and in that correspondence the reservation of . the rights of both parties and the contentions of both parties were made. It seems to me, under these circumstances, that it was clearly a subject which should have been arbitrated. If there were no rights there on the part of Great Britain and Canada, what rights were being reserved? If there were rights, why should they not have been arbitrated? But, Sir, the statement which the minister has made, which has gone on record, is unfortunate, because he has taken almost the extreme view that the United States has taken, and in future negotiations it will very seriously militate against this country. I am goinv to refer to the correspondence between Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett. The letter, to

-which reference was made by the Minister of Justice, was dated March 10, 1845, and the clause which has particular relation to the subject matteT now under discussion, and which is to be found at page .141 of the appendix to the British case, reads as follows:
The undersigned has accordingly much pleasure in announcing to Mr. Everett, the determination to which Her Majesty s government have come to relax
Observe the word, Mr. Speaker.

relax in favour of the United States fishermen, that right which Great Britain has hitherto exercised, of excluding those fishermen from the British portion of the Bay of Fundy, and they are prepared to direct their colonial authorities to allow, henceforward, to allow the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any hay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.
That was the offer of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett, and it was an offer which clearly contained a condition. Here is the reply of Mr. Everett, or the important part of it, which will be found on page 142 of the same volume, under date of March 25, 1845. After acknowledging the receipt of Lord Aberdeen's letter, Mr. Everett goes on to say:
While he desires, however, without reserve, to express his sense of the amicable disposition evinced by Her Majesty's government on this occasion in relaxing in favour of the United States

Again observe the word, Mr. Speaker.
-the exercise of what, after deliberate reconsideration, fortified by high legal authority, is deemed an unquestioned right of Her Majesty's government, the undersigned would he unfaithful to his duty did he omit to remark to Lord Aberdeen that no arguments have at any time been adduced to shake the [DOT]confidence of the government of the United States in their own construction of the treaty.
At this point, just let me say that the [DOT]contention which the United States were putting forward then, which they always *thereafter put forward, and which they put forward at the hearing of this case before the Hague Tribunal-the same extreme contention with respect to bays, that was made *with respect to the Bay of Fundy in this -correspondence-was made on behalf of every other bay, when the matter came to he arbitrated in 1910 at the Hague. Mr. Everett's letter continues:
While they have ever been prepared to admit, that in the letter of one expression of that instrument there is some reason for claiming a right to exclude United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy (it being Mr. JAMESON.
difficult to deny to that arm of the sea the name of ' bay ' which long geographical usage has assigned to it), they have ever strenuously maintained that it is only on heir own construction of the entire article that its known design in reference to the regulation of the fisheries admits of being carried into effect.
The undersigned does not make this obser vation for the sake of detracting from the liberality evinced by Her Majesty's government in relaxing

The word ' relaxing ' is again used

-from what they have regarded as their right: but would be placing his own government in a false position to accept as mere favour that for which they have so long and stienuonsly contended as due to them under the convention.
Here we have the conditional offer of Lord Aberdeen to Mr. Everett, spurned by the representative of the United States, who mid in effect: You are giving us nothing; you are merely offering to us what we already have, and therefore, we will not, on our part, meet the conditions which you have imposed. They did not permanently change anything by that correspondence, and no concession was ever made after that. It was a relaxation for a time only and conditional at that. There was a finality attached to it, and that finality was brought about by certain actions on the part of the government of Canada with the assent of the British authorities.
Now, I may say that there were several reasons in addition to the reason I have just given, why this should not be considered as more than a temporary relaxation. For instance, during the hearing of the Halifax Fishery Awa-rd Argument, it was declared by Mr. Thompson,	in
arguing the case on behalf of Great Britain, that it was only	a relaxation, and a temporary relaxation. The United States did not contend at that time, that this relaxation of Lord Aberdeen's gave them rights in the Bay of Fundy. They were then founding their alleged rights, not upon that chiefly but rather upon the award of Mr. Bates, in connection with the arbitration with reference to the Schooner ' Washington, an American vessel, which had been seized for fishing within what was then known as the three-mile limit in the Bay of Fundy, that is outside of the Grand Manan islands. The matter was referred to a tribunal of three, Mr. Bates being the umpire, and giving a decision adverse to Great Britain, and the sum of $3,000 damages was paid. The United States claimed under that chiefly, rather than under Lord Aberdeen's letter.
In 1870 the Hon. Peter Mitchell, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, placed certain restrictions upon American fishermen with regard to the fishery regulations of this country, and Lord Grenville sent a despatch

to Mr. Mitchell in which he said that ' Her Majesty's government hopes that the United States fishermen will not, for the present, be prevented from fishing except within three miles of land or in bays which are less than six miles broad at the mouth.' So that on that occasion, there was a clear illustration of the view that the Canadian authorities held that this did not operate in any way as giving a permanent Tight to the Americans in that bay and the British authorities when they used the expression ' for the present ' regarded the relaxation of the enforcement of their exclusive rights in all bays more than six miles broad at the mouth, as being a temporary relaxation only.
Again in 1886 the parliament of Canada passed an Act respecting Foreign Fishing Vessels. That Act did not meet with the approval of our friends in the United States, and consequently an interchange of correspondence took place between Mr. Phelps, then representative of the United States at the Court of St. James, and .the Marquis of Salisbury. Here is an extract from a letter, dated January 25,	1887,
from Mr. Phelps to Lord Salisbury referring to this Act of 1886, which was passed by the parliament of Canada. Mr. Phelps says:
Since the receipt of Lord Iddesleigh's note, the United States government has learned with grave regret that Her Majesty's assent has been given to an Act of the parliament of Canada, passed at its late session, intituled: ' An Act further to amend the Act respecting Fishing by Foreign Vessels/ which has been the subject of observation in the previous correspondence on the subject between the government of the United States and of Great Biitain.
Mr. Phelps goes on to state:
It has been pointed out in my note to Lord Iddesleigh above mentioned that the three-mile limit referred to in this Act is claimed bv the Canadian government to include considerable portions of the high seas, such as the Bay of Fundy, the Bay of Chaleurs and similar waters, by drawing the line from headlands to headlands. And that American fishermen have been excluded from those waters accordingly.
So that there is no foundation for the assertion that since 1845, the date of the interchange of correspondence between Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett, the United States had the privilege of the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy without any objection on the part of Great Britain or Canada. I say that that citation which I have made-a citation from the letter of the representative of the United States at the Court of St. James-is the strongest evidence of the fact that the British and Canadian authorities considered that the
United States had no rights in these waters, and that when Her Majesty's assent was given the Act-and the assent of the Governor General of Canada was withheld pending the sanction by the imperial authorities of that Act-it is evident that the British authorities claimed that the Bay of Fundy was British territorial waters.
Now, Sir, to return again to the arbitra- [DOT] by the Hague Tribunal.
In April, 1909, a document was brought down in the imperial parliament which contained the special agreement entered into at Washington cn the 27th January, 1909, and embodied the correspondence between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Bacon of 6th February, 1909. There is nothing, however, in this document to indicate that any arrangement had been made to exclude the Bay of Fundy from the scope of the arbitration which was to be undertaken under this agreement.
Again in September, 1909, we find that another document was printed and presented to both houses of parliament in Great Britain. This contains the special agreement entered into on the 27th January, 1909, at Washington, and also two notes interchanged between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Bacon, who had succeeded Mr. Root as Secretary of State for the United States. The first is from Mr. Bryce to Mr. Bacon:
British Embassy,
Washington, March 4, 1909.
Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note informing me that the Senate of the United States has approved the special agreement for the reference to arbitration of the questions relating to the fisheries on the North Atlantic coast and of the terms of the resolution in which that approval was given.
It is now my duty to inform you that the government of His Britannic Majesty confirms the special agreement aforesaid, and in doing so confirms also the understanding arrived at by us that question 5 of the series of questions submitted for arbitration-namely, from where must be measured the ' 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, hays, creeks, or harbours ' referred to in the said article-is submitted in its present form with the agreed understanding that no question as to the Bay of Fundy, considered as a whole, apart from its hays or creeks, or as to innocent passage through the Gut of Canso, is included in this question as one to be raised in the present arbitration, it being the intention of the parties that their respective views or contentions on either subject shall be in no wise prejudiced by anything in the present arbitration.
This understanding is that which -was embodied in notes exchanged between your predecessor and myself on the 27th January, and is that expressed in the above-mentioned resolution of the Senate of the United States.
I have, &c.,


JAMES BRYCE.
[Stage Direction]
Here now we have the most extraordinary statement that, at the same time that the agreement was entered into, there was an ' understanding ' outside of that agreement which varied it and lessened the benefits of it, so far as Great Britain and Canada in particular are concerned.
Let me read the reply:
Department of State,
Washington, March 4, 1909.
Excellency:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note of the 4th instant, in which you confirm the understanding in the matter of the special agreement submitting to arbitration the differences between the governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the North Atlantic fisheries, as expressed in the resolution of the Senate of the 16th of February, 1909, and as previously agreed upon by the interchange of notes with my predecessor of the 27th of January, 1909.
I therefore have the honour to inform you that this government considers the special agreement as in full force and effect from and after the 4th day of March, 1909.
I have, &c.,

[Stage Direction]
In this document brought down to the British House of parliament on September, 1909, a reference is made to an understanding entered into on the 27th January of that year, the same date that this special agreement for the submission of these matters to the Hague Tribunal was signed and sealed. And the strange part is that in the document brought down in February no reference is made to any such understanding, and the agreement, as brought down to the Imperial House misht well be misleading so far as the scope of question 5 is concerned. For would not the members of the Imperial House have the right to believe that every question with regard to bays in His Majesty's North American possessions on the Atlantic, was to be settled by that tribunal under question 5? Yet here we have this mysterious understanding which suddenly crops up in this blue-book submitted to the imperial parliament in (September, 1909.
George Eulas Foster: The other was February.


Clarence Jameson: Yes, and this was in September, or eight months after the clandestine understanding was arrived at.
I ask the hon. minister why it was that this understanding was entered into, at whose instance, upon whose advice, with whose consent, and who is to accept the responsibility. The minister in effect stated that this understanding was arrived at under his instructions or with his knowledge and consent.
One thing is sure, and that is that this government cannot escape responsibility


Clarence Jameson: for it; because that responsibility is absolutely nailed down by Article 2 of this treaty of 1909, which I have already read, but which I will repeat at this juncture:
His Majesty's government reserving the right, before concluding a special agreement affeoting any of the self-governing dominions of the British Empire, to obtain the concurrence therein of the government of that dominion.
So that it is to be presumed, apart altogether from the statement of the Minister of Justice, that the government had full cognizance of this matter-they were party and privy to it, and the responsibility is entirely upon them for the failure to include the Bay of Fundy in the subjects submitted to the Tribunal under question 5.
I must say that it is a surprising thing to me, notwithstanding the statement of the Minister of Justice, that the understanding was arrived at with his concurrence, that he preferred to have the understanding separate and apart-as I gather from his remarks-from the special agreement itself. I cannot understand the .advisability of that. Here was a special agreement entered into on the 27th of February, 1909,-the documents signed and sealed at Washington on that day. The documents were exchanged between Messrs. Bryce and Root., on the 6th of February, 1909. Up to that time, there was not a word upon the record, or in the document itself that any change had been made or was to be made in respect 4o its scope. Again, on the 16th of February, 1909, we find that the Senate of the United States approves of that special agreement, subject to the exclusion from the operation thereof of the question regarding the Bay of Fundy, the ' innocent passage of the Gulf of Canso,' and some question with respect to Conception Bay. We cannot find out what was said in the Senate of the United States, with regard to this matter, because what went on there, was carried on in camera. There were secret proceedings all Tound. And it was not until the 18th of February, 1909, that 'the injunction of secrecy was raised in the United States Senate from the special agreement between the United States and Great Britain for the submission to the permanent court of arbitration at the Hague, of questions relating to the fisheries of the North Atlantic coast.' That is the record that appears in the congressional record of February 20, 1909, in regard to the Senate of the United States. Now, this understanding, as I have said, was evidently arrived at with the concurrence and by the consent of the government of this country or of its representatives in that behalf.


George Eulas Foster: Were the papers not brought down?


Clarence Jameson: No papers with regard to this subject have ever been brought down, printed and distributed to this House, with the exception-I think I am stating the facts-of this blue-book distributed on the 27th of February last, entitled: ' Papers in regard to differences between Canada and the United States, referred to the Hague Tribunal, also amended fishery regulations ' {in other words, the award of the Hague Tribunal and some fishery regulations enacted thereunder) and a return brought down in response to a motion of the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), on the 27th of February, 1909, which embraced, I believe, the copy of the special agreement entered into on the 27th of January, 1909. It, however, was not printed. But no correspondence relating to this matter-none of the notes which passed on the 27th of January, 1909, and which varied this special agreement-have been laid before this parliament or so far as the documents in our hands evidence were ever presented to the imperial parliament.
The mysterious part of the matter is, here is a special understanding arrived at on the 27-th of January, 1909, between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Root, excepting the Bay of Fundy from the scope of this inquiry and from the operation of the award. The United -States Senate, according to all the records we have, did not pass upon that matter until the 16th of February, 1909, so we have an agreement on the part of the representatives -of the Canadian government that the Bay of Fundy should -be excluded from the award, actually entered into twenty days before the Senate of the United States demanded it. I say that is a most extraordinary condition of affairs, and is something which certainly needs explaining by the Minister of Justice, or whoever it was had this matter in charge.
It will be observed, also, that, while Mr. Bryce agreed to exclude these questions, of the Bay of Fundy from submission to The Hague Tribunal, he clung to our rights by the paragraph in his letter to which I have alluded. Although the minister has stated, in effect, that he does not Tegard us as having any territorial rights in the Bay of Fundy outside the three-mile limit, I wish to enter now a protest against that statement in the strongest terms possible, because I do not think the statement is one which should go unchallenged. Though a layman, I take that stand, and I trust I shall be supported in it by gentlemen of legal attainments whose opinion on that matter would be worthy of consideration. I feel it would be detrimental to -the interests of the country and detrimental to our interests in any future negotiations we may have in regard to this important bay that the statement should go unchallenged.
In what condition are we placed by reason of this ' understanding ' arrived at on the same day the special agreement was entered into ? Where does that leave us with regard to future arbitration in respect to the Bay of Fun-dy? Are we precluded by it from arbitrating in regard to the Bay of Fun-dy? Are we precluded for any,specific time, by this mysterious understanding of which we get no particulars? Or are we shut out for all time? I -say, these are important questions. The life of the treaty of 1908 between Great 'Britain and the United States, as I have pointed out, is five years from the 4th of June, 1908. It expires on the 4th of June, 1913, that is, there is practically only two years left of -the life of that treaty. I do not know, from any information I have, or can obtain, whether or not we are shut out from arbitrating our rights with respect to the Bay of Fundy by reason of -any ' understanding,' which may have been arrived at between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Root by the consent, and with the concurrence of the government of Canada or their representative.
What the toiling fishermen of the Bay of Fundy shores want to know is, what are the Canadian rights in the Bay of Fundy. Are they certain or are they indefinite? Are they exclusive, or are they otherwise? If indefinite, when will the government ever have another opportunity -such as they had in 1909, to clear up -the question and settle it for all -time ? If our Tights are exclusive does the United States recognize them as such, and does the government of Canada intend to enforce our rights in that regard? Two considerations hang upon this, if the Bay of Fun-dy is British territorial waters, the government of Canada can first exercise supervision and control of these fisheries from shore to shore. And, secondly, that the fishermen of the world can be excluded from the benefit of those fisheries.
1 have heard it stated in this House by supporters of the government that the fishermen of the maritime provinces are going to serve as recruits for the Canadian Naval Service. Sir, I believe that the fishermen of the Atlantic coasts of Canada will always be found ready and willing to do their duty to their country whenever they are called on. Of that I am absolutely confident, and I do not think it needs assertion or reassertion. But, Sir, what I say is, that if the fishermen of the maritime provinces are to be expected to recruit our navy, if they are to be expected to come to the rescue, the defence, and protection of Canada and Canadian interests, surely it is the duty of the government to guard and protect their interests when they are entrusted to them, as they were on the occasion to which I have alluded. In that connection the government has absolutely failed of its duty. It was the most complete backdown in matters diplomatic which has ever taken

place in connection with any Canadian affair. The people of this country wish to live on friendly terms with the people of the United States, of that there can be no question whatever. The two peoples are sprung largely from the same stock, speak pretty generally the same language, have largely the same laws, literature and customs, but with all that I believe that the people of Canada would hesitate to purchase that friendship at the cost of their rights as British subjects in our own fisheries. I believe that the people of Canada will shut their eyes to irregularities in different departments of government, that they will even shut their eyes to worse than extravagance in that connection, but if I know their temper and their mettle they are not likely to tolerate a sacrifice of their national interests either through weak-kneed diplomacy, or through the inefficiency of this or any other government; and so far as the documents I have inspected give me light on this subject, the government of this country has absolutely failed of its duty in connection with the Bay of Fundy, and with the preservation of the rights of our fishermen in that most important bay.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: When my hon. friend in the course of his remarks asked an answer to a question not long ago, I made an answer, which was possibly longer than it ought to have been. I understand it was long enough to lead to complaint of its length on the part of the hon. gentleman. That was my fault, my misapprehension, I suppose, because I had in all sincerity taken it that the question was asked because he wanted information. I think he has made it evident enough that it was not information that he was seeking, but rather some foundation, if by any possibility, even a foothold or a toehold for it could be obtained, for making an attack on this government, and I am agreeably disappointed in the gravamen of the complaint which is made by the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman gave notice last night that to-day he would discuss some points in connection with this award. The points in connection with the Hague award are literally too numerous to mention. A matter that took the better part of the summer for discussion and in respect to which the award itself, which is probably as compendious a summary of the points involved as could possibly be put upon paper, and'which extends over the number of foolscap pages this award occupies, is of such a character that to speak of some of the points in regard to the case, is like saying that all the words he intends to use would be found in an unabridged dictionary. Thus, I was not able to refresh my memory on particular points or to bring with me the papers Mr. JAMESON.
bearing on the matters to be brought up. The burden of the hon. gentleman's complaint is that the government is very seriously to blame because something or other has been lost or has been given away or somebody's case has been weakened or prejudice has in some manner or another arisen out of these recent proceedings in regard to the rights of Canadian' fishermen in the Bay of Fundy. The answer to that is very simple, very brief; the answer is simply that whatever such Canadian rights were before this arbitration was entered upon such and no less are Canadian rights to-day since this arbitration is ended and an award has been made. The reference to arbitration did not touch the Bay of Fundy one way or the other, and the notes which were exchanged between Mr. Bryce and the American authorities on that subject pursuant to the verbal arrangement in that behalf which had been entered into, say in so many words that nothing in connection with these proceedings is to prejudice the rights of either party or the contentions which either party is at liberty to make in regard to the effect of the treaty of 1818 upon the Bay of Fundy. Surely nothing can be plainer than the position in which matters with regard to the Bay of Fundy are left by that arrangement. There was no arbitration about the Bay of Fundy, that is all that has happened in regard to it. There was arbitration in regard to the remainder of our bays, and whatever position the Bay of Fundy was in before this agreement to have an arbitration was entered into, in that identical position the Bay of Fundy is to-day unless it may be, as I think it may well be, that the position of Canada in regard to that bay is made stronger by the success which Canada's contentions have had before the tribunal last summer.
It is all very well for the hon. gentleman to deplore the fact that the Bay of Fundy was excluded from the arbitration of last summer. The position which was taken by the United States with regard to that sheet of water was simply: We will not arbitrate about it. It takes two people to make a bargain, it takes two people to make an agreement to arbitrate just as much as it takes two people to make any other agreement and with the United States saying: We will not submit any question to The Hague Tribunal with regard to the Bay of Fundy, the position of Great Britain was just simply this: Will we arbitrate with regard to the other bays, will we arbitrate with regard to the other question? which are in issue, leaving any question with regard to the Bay of Fundy untouched by this arrangement for arbitration? The hon. gentleman may have the opinion that it would have been wiser for Great Britain to have refused to arbitrate at all than to have entered into any submission to arbitrate when the Bay of Fundy was excluded

from that submission. He is entitled to that opinion if he entertains it. Speaking for myself, I entertain exactly the opposite opinion, and I think it was a vast advantage to this country to obtain the submission of the leading, in fact, all the questions which had ever, in the course of ninety years, arisen with regard to this treaty, even although we did not at the same time get the decision made applicable to the Bay of Fundy. We have not in any degree lessened our rights in the Bay of Fundy. The agreement which is made with regard to that piece of water and the notes which have been referred to expressly declare that the rights or claims of Canada are not to be prejudiced as far as the Bay of Fundy is concerned by anything which takes place in this arbitration. Equally the rights and claims of the United States with regard to that bay are preserved and kept from being prejudiced by this arbitration. It was, as I said when I was on my feet a little while ago, simply made, on the part of the United States, a sine qua non of entering into this arbitration that nothing with respect to the arbitration should affect the position of either party with regard to the Bay of Fundy. I am not concerned, I think, in discussing the effect of the correspondence of 1845 and of the earlier years with regard to that bay. I am perfectly aware that the effect of that correspondence is a matter about which a good deal can be said on either side, and from more than one point of view. If the hon. member will take the trouble to peruse the oral argument which took place last summer at The Hague he will find pages and pages of discussion by the learned gentlemen on both sides of this matter devoted entirely to a minute and critical dissection and analysis of all the correspondence which culminated in the letter of 1845 written by Lord Aberdeen. The attitude of both parties in the previous years in the course of the prolonged diplomatic discussion, while it related immediately to the Bay of Fundy, had the most important possible bearing upon the general question of the interpretation of this clause of the treaty, and just for that reason every word, I may say every letter, of that long diplomatic correspondence was scrutinized with the utmost care, was presented before the tribunal and was discussed over and over again on both sides of the question by the various counsel who were concerned in the case. In those circumstances I should be a very bold man if I were to express my own opinion in so far as I have formed one as to the effect of that correspondence, and it would not, in any circumstances, be fitting that I should do so. The hon. gentleman indicates the opinion of it which he has and he believes that there is nothing in it which in anv way precludes Great Britain or
Canada asserting to-day the right to exclude the fishermen of the United States from the whole Bay of Fundy. That may be so, but if that is a matter which is ever to be again in debate between the United States and Canada I think it would not be desirable that I, at any rate, whatever other hon. gentleman may see fit to do, should discuss it in this House, or express an opinion with regard to it.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
PRIVATE BILLS.	'


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 101) respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Sealey.
Bill (No. 106) to incorporate the Lake Erie and Northern Railway Company.- Mr. Harris.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 126) respecting the Quebec, Montreal and . Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Fortier.
SUPPLY-HAGUE	ARBITRATION;

[Stage Direction]
The Order for Public Bills having expired, the House resumed the adjourned debate on the motion to go into Committee of Supply.
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: When you left the Chair at six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I had shown, I think conclusively, that whether or not Great Britain gave away the Bay of Fundy in 1845, we certainly did nothing in the nature of giving away either the bay or any contention with regard to the bay when we entered into the arrangement for arbitration on the subject of the fisheries, two years ago. But the hon. gentleman who addressed you this afternoon makes the complaint as well that the reservation of the rights of the respective parties with regard to the Bay of Fundy which took place in 1909, was something secret, clandestine, mysterious, which nobody can understand. Well, I do not know what the grievance is if that were so. It is not so as a matter of fact; there is not a particle of foundation for it that I am able to discover anywhere. But if it were so, who is injured by it? What is the grievance? What difference would there have been if it had been published in all the official gazettes between here and Kamschatka? The arrangement was entered into in the shape of an interchange of notes between the British embassy and the United States Secretary of

State simply as a means of recording the agreement which had been come to. An agreement of any kind does not take shape at once, as any one knows who has had anything to do with the practical work of framing an agreement between parties. Ordinarily it is built up piece by piece and by slow degrees; always it must be preceded by either verbal negotiations or written communications between the parties, and in this instance, just as in the case of the most ordinary business agreement which might be entered into between any two men, there were a great many verbal communications on the subject of what should be submitted to arbitration, between the British Ambassador, on the one part, and representatives of the United States Department of State on the other part. Ultimately, out of these negotiations and .communications there came to be something put into writing as a proposed draft of, it may be the terms which were embodied in the formal document of agreement to arbitrate, or it may be at first of the questions which it was proposed to have submitted-I cannot say which, as a matter of memory. It was the subject of communication backward and forward between the different people who were interested in the matter for months before the final meeting in January, 1909, at which the terms of the agreement were definitely put into their last shape. It had been an understanding more or less distinct, for more than a year before that, that these differences would be referred to arbitration before a tribunal at the Hague. At the Imperial Conference of 1907, Sir Robert Bond, then First Minister of .Newfoundland, asked the help of his colleagues from the sister colonies in the effort to get these differences settled. It is to be remembered that Canada had at that time, no question of acute difference with the United States with regard to the fisheries. Canada had been getting along for 20 years or more under the modus vivendi of 1888, and there had been, so far as I at present recollect, not a single dispute, unless it might have been some letter or protest about some more or less trifling matter which may have occurred in that interval. But in 1907 things had come to be in a very acute condition between the United States and Newfoundland, and Sir Robert Bond asked his fellow-members of the Imperial Conference to exert their influence and assist him with the British government in an effort to get these 'difficulties referred to arbitration at the Hague. Finally, perhaps some time during the year 1908, it came to be understood or more or less definitely agreed, that the matters would be referred to a tribunal to be arranged out of the members of the Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
permanent court at the Hague. Then the question arose of what points should be submitted to this tribunal. Any agreement for arbitration would of course be between the United States on the one part, and on the other part, not Canada, not Newfoundland, but the whole British Empire; and the British government was not merely theoretically but literally taking charge of the work of the negotiations for this refer-once to the Hague. Communications were had from time to time with this government in Canada, and we were kept informed of what was going on, and the proposed drafts of submission to arbitration were from time to time forwarded here whether those drafts were proposed on the part of the British Ambassador, or on the part of the United States. I cannot now, speaking from memory, state at what stage of the matter the first reference to the Bay of Fundy appeared; but I am quite sure that it was at a very early stage of the efforts to frame the questions which should be submitted. It was Canada which was mainly interested in having settled the question as to the bays. Quite true, Newfoundland was interested in that question also. They have many large bays upon their eastern coast and upon the eastern half of their southern coast, in regard to which it was their contention, just as it was ours in Canada, that in the treaty of 1818 the United States renounced their' right to fish. But the question of the bays, so far as Newfoundland was concerned, was not presented as being of the first consequence. To us it seemed probably the most important question of any which had been suggested, so that from the first time that Canada had anything to do with suggesting questions which ought to be included among those to be submitted to arbitration, the question which now appears in the list of questions as number 5-how the 3-mile limit is to be measured, or, in other words, what are the bays from which the United States fishermen are to be excluded-always had a place. That was in the first draft that went from Ottawa in connection with this matter; and it always remained there in some shape or other until its final inclusion, when the agreement to arbitrate was settled two years ago. As soon as that question appeared upon any draft going from here, I venture to say, speaking from recollection, the United States at once said: Very well, we have no objection to arbitrate that question with you, but it must not affect our position with reference to the Bay of Fundy, that question must not include the Bay of Fundy; we are not prepared to arbitrate with reference to the Bay of Fundy. And let me remind the hon. gentleman who has spoken that there is a great deal of reason in that position.
Without saying anything as to the true

meaning of the arrangement with regard to the Bay of Fundy which was made in 1845, this at all events is certain as a matter of history, namely, that from the time when that letter of Lord Aberdeen was written in 1845 up to the present, no one on the British side has asserted a right to exclude the fishermen of the United States from that Bay. Whether or not that be what the letter means, that is what has happened. The United States fishermen, ever since that letter was received by them from the British government, have exercised what they call their right to fish in the Bay of Fundy, and no attempt has been made to prevent the exercise by them of that right. Sixty and odd years had gone by when, in 1909, we were framing a submission to arbitration. Was it unreasonable on the part of the United States to say to us: We will arbitrate, if you like, with regard to the bays which you say we are excluded from, but we will not arbitrate with regard to the Bay of Fundy. There are no differences to arbitrate with regard to that bay. There have been no quarrels regarding it ever since 1845. What, then, was there to arbitrate? If we had resisted their demand that the Bay of Fundy should not be included, and if they had taken the position I have just mentioned, what answer could we have given? It is all very well for hon. gentlemen opposite to cry out now in the light of our victory and inquire why we did not include the Bay of Fundy and succeed as to that as well as to the1 others, but the fact is we had been making no claim to exclude the fishermen of the United States from that bay for sixty-four years when this treaty of arbitration was entered into. There was, in fact, no question then outstanding with regard to it.
As the United States took the position that they did not intend to submit any question with regard to the Bay of Fundy to arbitration, there was no other course left if we were to have an arbitration at all than to arbitrate the remaining questions which had arisen, some before 1845 and some later and some of which were of pressing, practical importance.
Then, the manner in which the understanding was expressed that the Bay of Fundy was not to be included in the arbitration seems to me a matter of very trifling consequence. It had been originally proposed as an independent article of the agreement to arbitrate. It appeared in this draft agreement to arbitrate which reached us from Washington. I do not know which side framed it, and I do not suppose there was any dispute about it. It was simply a couple of lines saying that this agreement to arbitrate was not to affect the claims of either party in respect of the Bay of Fundy. That was the position of the draft, or proposed terms, of the arrangement- in January, 1909, when I went to Washington in order to get the matter brought to a final termination. In the verbal discussions we had over the subject it was, as I have said, myself, I think, who suggested that instead of having that clause on the face of a formal instrument it would answer every purpose and be better if put into the shape of an exchange of letters between the British ambassador on the one part and the United States Secretary of State on the other. That form of expressing a collateral understanding, or agreement, is a very common one among lawyers when for any reason it is thought preferable by either party not to express on the face of a formal instrument some understanding or provision. Instead of doing this, letters expressing such understanding are interchanged between the parties, and are of equal weight. This is done just as a matter of convenience, or probably because some one connected with the affair expresses a preference to have it that way. Everybody else agreed, and it was done accordingly. My hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) thinks, however, that there was something terribly mysterious about this, that it was secret, clandestine and improper. _ Well, one hears a good deal on some occasions of such expressions. I suppose they are intended to impress somebody ot other somewhere in the country with the idea that things are done in a sort of underhand fashion. I do not know for what other purpose such charges are made or such expressions used in this House. Similar charges might be made regarding the most ordinary transactions. If two men enter into a bargain in every-day life, do they unnecessarily publish it abroad? Why should they? If any lawyer, making an agreement between his client and the client of a fellow-practitioner, were asked that this agreement or the pourparlers which preceded it should be published in the newspapers, he dare not consent under penalty of losing his practice. If he. did consent, nobody would go to him. Why on earth should we act differently in public affairs? Again, let me remind the hon. gentleman that it was not Canada making this agreement with the United States. This agreement was, not only in terms and name, but- literally, the agreement of His Majesty under the advice of his own advisers in Great Britain. It may be said that it was the home authorities who led Canada and Newfoundland into this difficulty. It was certainly they who got them out of this difficulty. They made it, as they might very properly do, their own matter, and this treaty, or agreement, of arbitration was entered into by them through their ambassador. It is perfectly true that they consulted Canada and Newfoundland and acted with the concurrence

of these colonies, but it is none the less true that they acted upon their own view as to what was right and proper.
The hon. gentleman says that nobody knew of this agreement until it appeared in a British blue-book in September, 1909. He might quite as well have said that it appeared contemporaneously in the printed appendix to these proceedings, and, as a matter of course, was open to any one to read who was interested enough to look through the volume. It is something which took place contemporaneously with the signed agreement; to arbitrate, and the documents show on their face the nature of the circumstances which led to that agreement being entered into. The agreement to submit these differences to arbitration was signed on the 27th January, 1909, between Mr. Root and Mr. Bryce. I may now say that another understanding, which is not expressed in this agreement, an understanding verbally expressed, was that it was not to be acted upon unless the government of Newfoundland afterwards assented to it. It was of great importance that it should be signed at the time it was, the 27th January, 1909. Mr. Root was leaving office immediately after affixing his signature to this document, and it was he who had negotiated on the part of the United States the whole matter from the beginning.
He was the man who had conducted the diplomatic correspondence with Sir Edward Grey in connection with these disputes for years before 1909; and, this being something which he was, on the part of the United States, more familiar with than any other single person, it was certainly of some consequence to get it closed, if possible, before his final retirement from the official position of Secretary of State. He resigned immediately after the signature of this document. It had been, up to that date, impossible to submit the document in its final shape to the government of Newfoundland. The Attorney General of Newfoundland was in Washington, but he was insisting that it should be submitted to his first minister, Sir Robert Bond, and, although the document was actually signed by Mr. Bryce and Mr. Root on the 27th January, it was with the understanding that it would not be acted upon unless and until it had the approval of Sir Robert Bond and of his government. Receiving that approval, in due course it came to be submitted to the Senate of the United States; and, being so submitted, at some date before the 21st February, 1909, within the next three or four weeks after it was signed, the Senate agreed to it' only upon the condition that all question with regard to the Bay of Fundy should be excluded. The Senate made that an integral part of their acceptance of this arrangement. The resolution is worded:


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: It is agreed by the United States and Great Britain that question 5 of the series submitted namely, ' from where must be measured the three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks, or harbours referred to in said article,' dees not include any question as to the Bay of Fundy, considered as a whole apart from its bays or creeks.
Then, there is the reference to innocent passage through the gulf of Canso and to the respective views or contentions of the United States and Great Britain not being in any-wise prejudiced by anything in the present arbitration, ' and this agreement on the part of the United States will be mentioned in the ratification of the special agreement, and will, in effect, form part of the special agreement.' So, the Senate of the United States, having given its assent to this matter being sent to the Hague only on the terms of that resolution; it became absolutely necessary that the resolution should be notified officially to the government of Great Britain as one of the terms of the ratification. It was in that way that these notes were exchanged between Mr. Bacon, who, by that time, had succeeded Mr. Root as Secretary of State, and Mr. Bryce. Mr. Bacon wrote his letter immediately on the resolution being passed on the 21st February to Mr. Bryce, stating:
In giving this advice and consent to the ratification of this special agreement, and as a part of the act of ratification, the Senate states in the resolution its understanding

the effect of which I have already given. Mr. Bryce, having received that letter on the 21st February, when he came, under the proper authority from London, to exchange the formal ratification of the agreement with the government of the United States, wrote his letter of 4th March, 1909, to Mr. Bacon in which he acknowledged the receipt of the letter of 21st February and proceeded to say that the British understanding of the situation with regard to the Bay of Fundy was exactly that which was expressed in the resolution of the Senate. These notes having been exchanged between the representatives of both nations and the agreement to refer this matter to the Hague having been ratified and entered into only on the condition that anything resulting from the arbitration should prejudice in no way the claims of the United States to the Bay of Fundy-and equally should prejudice in no way the claims of Great Britain in regard to the Bay of Fundy-who is hurt by it? What foundation is there in fact for the charge of the hon. gentleman that there has been some dereliction of duty on the part of this government in not having the Bay of Fundy included, and the Bay of Fundy settled? It was simply in the position that the United States was willing to arbitrate other ques-

tions, but refused to arbitrate that one, saying that there was nothing to arbitrate in regard to it, and the whole question for determination was whether we would arbitrate all the rest-which were the only things we were quarrelling about-leaving the Bay of Fundy in regard to which there had been no question of difference for nearly seventy years, on one side, I think we should have been very remiss in our duty, if we had insisted on making the inclusion of the Bay of Fundy a point in this matter, if we had endeavoured to waken up questions which had remained absolutely quiescent for nearly seventy years in regard to the Bay of Fundy and had made the inclusion of them a condition precedent to entering into arbitration with regard to the others. As I have pointed out, nobody has been in any way damnified by the fact that the Bay of Fundy has not been included in this arbitration. The condition in regard to it remains exactly what it was five years ago-not any worse certainly for us; I think it is a good deal better, because the result of the award having been to confirm our contention in regard to bays generally, it has gone a very long distance toward confirming the like contention about the Bay of Fundy if we are in a position to set up that contention about the Bay of Fundy. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Jameson) thinks we are, upon his view of the correspondence of 1845. It may be so; I am not disputing it for a moment. I know that other people take a very different view. I know the United States takes a very different view. I know that ever since 1845 the United States has treated that letter of 1845 as an absolute concession to them on the part of Great Britain of all their contentions in regard to the Bay of Fundy. I am not saying they are right in doing so; I am only stating as a matter of fact that they have done so all these years. Now, if at any time it is thought desirable on the part of Canada to revive the contention which Nova Scotia made before 1845, to reassert in 1911, or at any subsequent date, the position which Nova Scotia took in 1841 and the subsequent years, there is nothing in the arrangement for this arbitration of last summer to interfere in the least degree with their doing so. Whether or not it would be desirable that it should be done is for hon, gentlemen to consider. Let me say in that connection that I think there are a great many other things to be considered than those which have been mentioned this afternoon. And, whatever there may be to be considered now, there were a very great many more to be considered two years ago.
It is always very easy to be wise after the event, but I ask hon. gentlemen to reflect upon the position matters were in in
January, 1909. I am able to say I think, having followed the course of these proceedings day by day and hour by hour last summer with the keenest interest, that with things as they were, our success upon this important question of bays was a close enough affair. There were five members of that tribunal, one of whom in the end was adverse; of the other four members of that tribunal one was the representative of the United States. Looking at the situation as it existed before the argument and before any indication of opinion had been given by the arbitrators on the subject of bays, it was reasonably manifest that the fate of our bays depended upon one of the five arbitrators who was not a representative of either of the nations interested, and it was certainly, on the part of all the counsel or lawyers who were engaged in the case, a matter of not only the greatest doubt and anxiety, but literally of the greatest uncertainty until the very moment when the award was handed out what the decision on the subject of bays would be. We were undertaking a pretty heavy task, when, in the face of the declared policy of the British government in regard to the non-territoriality of European bays which are more than six miles across we were undertaking to argue that great bays like the Baie des Chaleurs, 16 miles across at the entrance, were territorial, inland, closed waters to which other nations had no right of access, and I say again, as I said before when I was speaking three months ago, that in my opinion we are vastly indebted to the ability, the learning and the skill of the Attorney General of England and his argument before the tribunal that we succeeded upon our bays at all. Looking at the situation as it existed when this agreement of arbitration was being negotiated in 1909, I am certainly by no means prepared to say that it would have been a wise thing for us to have asked that the Bay of Fundy should have been included, that it would have been a reasonably prudent thing for us to have included the Bay of Fundy in the subjects for submission to the tribunal at the Hague, and looking at it to-day, after the event, and in the light of what took place during the argument, and of the words in which the award itself is made, I am glad that we got through that arbitration without the Bay of Fundy being included and without having had to have the burden of proving that a sheet of water 60 miles in width at its entrance was a territorial bay of Great Britain.


Robert Laird Borden: How does its width compare with that of Placentia bay?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Speaking from memory I am not able to say, but of course it would depend entirely on where you marked the entrance to Placentia bay.


Robert Laird Borden: I mean the entrance as marked by the tribunal?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Again I am not able to say from memory what the length of the lines would be across Placentia bay, which the tribunal has recommended the parties to adopt. The hon. gentleman, of course, will not overlook the fact that the tribunal has decided nothing in regard to Placentia bay, but has recommended simply that the parties interested should adopt certain lines which it has defined.


Robert Laird Borden: In what respect has it not decided with regard to Placentia bay what it has decided with regard to the Baie des Chaleurs?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The position in regard to Placentia bay is the same as in regard to Baie des Chaleurs, the tribunal has not undertaken to pronounce any piece of water to be a bay but it has declared in answer to the question how the three marine miles mentioned in the treaty are to be measured that when you are dealing with bays, you ought to treat as the entrance of the bay the place where the bay first loses the characteristics and configuration of a bay, and contenting itself with making that general answer that you are to mark as the entrance to the bay the point at which if you were proceeding seaward, you would first cross the line which would mark the situation where the bay( ended or where the characteristics and configuration of the bay came to an end, the tribunal has proceeded to recommend that certain lines be adopted across Placentia bay, Baie des Chaleurs, Bay Miramichi and the other large bays in question.


Robert Laird Borden: Having regard to the general character ol the award what would have been the danger of including the Bay of Fundy in the terms of the submission?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: The idea was as I have stated that it would have increased the burden of difficulty upon us which was already heavy enough; it would have been certainly the largest of the bays we would have had to contend for, and would have given our adversaries opportunity to point to it as being the thing we were contending for and to say to the tribunal:	Is it possible to hold that that
sheet of water is territorial and not open sea? In making that argument, the United States would also have had the advantage of the concession, whatever it was, which was made in 1845, and if the Bay of Fundy had been included as a thing to be arbitrated upon, the United States would have been able to point with the utmost confidence to the course, which Great Britain had herself taken in regard to that Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.
bay in 1845 as being not only an indication of willingness to give up all further contention about the Bay of Fundy, but equally an indication of willingness to d.o the same thing in regard to other bays, if the Bay of Fundy had been before the tribunal in the same category with the remaining bays upon the coast. I venture to think our position was better before the tribunal without any reference to the Bay of Fundy being included in the matters for decision, the arrangement being that nothing in the proceedings should prejudice our claims with reference to the Bay of Fundy or the claims of the United States in reference to the Bay of Fundy. That bay was simply put upon one side.
It could be referred to for the purpose of illustration and for matters of argument, but it was not anything that we were fighting over upon that particular occasion. We are not in the least degree precluded from fighting over it as a separate matter, if at any future time it is thought desirable to do so. But, before that course could be taken, either two years ago, or at any future time, you have first to get the consent of the British government, and, secondly,, the consent of the government of the United States. It is not for me to offer any opinion as to what course the British government would take, if they were asked by Canada to raise now the old question with regard to the Bay if any such proposition were now made by 1845. I have not any doubt, however, that if any such proposition were now made bv Canada to Great Britain, the exact language of the letter of Lord Aberdeen in 1845 would be carefully considered and no British statesman of to-day -would, for a moment, be willing to recede at all from what, nj his opinion, the fair meaning of that letter may have been. But, if the British government agreed with us, that it was desirable to arbitrate now any question with reference to the Bay of Fundy, it is plain surely that the assent of the United States to such an arbitration is equally necessary, and unless the United States were put in such n Position by reason of seizures in the Bay of Fundy or by reason of. our seeking by active means to exclude their fishermen from that bay, that they felt it a matter if importance to them to go to arbitration with regard to it, I am not able to see what other inducement would exist for them ever to agree to any arbitration in the world about it. They are perfectly content with the present situation. My hon. friend thinks that the letter of 1845 does not mean any more than a temporary relaxation of the right of Great Britain with regard to the bay. The United States is-, at any rate, quite content with its present situation upon the language of the letter and the manner in which, since the letter was written, the fisheries of the Bay of Fundy have been

administered by Great Britain and by Canada. The bon. gentleman urged that the effect of these contemporaneous letters upon the agreement to arbitrate was, in his judgment, greatly to weaken the .case of Great Britain. I have tried to show why I think that is not so, but I am quite willing to let it go in the shape in which the hon. gentleman put it. He thinks that our arranging to leave the Bay of Fundy out greatly weakened our case. Be it so, weakened as it was, our case was strong enough to succeed.


Clarence Jameson: The hon. minister misunderstood me. I said that the omission of the question of the Bay of Fundy would weaken any future case which we might desire to press, with regard to the Bay" of Fundy.


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: If the hon. gentleman, when speaking of the case being weakened, was not referring to the case which has been already arbitrated, I have nothing additional to say. As to the future, I think I have plainly enough shown and that the language of the document abundantly establishes that nobody's case is weakened any, but that on the contrary, the reasons for the decisions which have been given by the arbitrators in their considered judgment, certainly do not weaken, but rather strengthen any claim which we may now put forward with regard to the Bay of Fundy. They have, as the hon. gentleman himself has pointed out, in the extracts which he has read, used words which might fairly be applied to the Bay of Fundy, and which in any future arbitration, if any future arbitration ever exists, could certainly De used as a strong argument in favour of the contention that the Bay of Fundy is territorially altogether British.
With regard to the animadversion which has been made with respect to the papers not having been brought down, I am utterly astonished. There has never been the slightest idea on the part of anybody of keeping back papers. There is certainly nothing to keep back. While the matter was yet under consideration before the tribunal, however, probably a different situation would have arisen had anybody asked for papers. As I have said, it was the British government conducting this arbitration, literally and entirely so. They were in charge of it and anything we had to do, was under their direction. I was attending there not only in the capacity of a member of the government of Canada, but as the agent for Great Britain, under the appointment of Sir Edward Grey, responsible to him, reporting to him periodically during the arbitration, and the arbitration was in every sense of the word conducted on the British
side by the British government assisted, ns far as it was possible, by the governments of Canada and of Newfoundland. I may say to the hon. gentleman that long after this arrangement or agreement to arbitrate was entered into, even down to the 1st of June, 1910, when the actual oral argument began, the British government placed its prohibition upon this government and, I have no doubt, upon the government of Newfoundland as well, against the making public of any papers in connection with the case. Even the documents and the case which were printed and interchanged between counsel and between the governments on the 1st of October, 1909, were held as confidential. Only a few copies were in Canada, and these copies were under the strictest injunctions of confidence or secrecy down to the very day of the beginning of the oral proceedings at the Hague. I was not myself, able to understand the necessity for these injunctions of secrecy, hut they were given me personally and given to others in the strictest possible manner, and for reasons which were considered sufficient, the British government preferred to insist upon the papers in connection with this matter remaining of a confidential nature, until the actual hearing of the case had begun. In these circumstances, if any application for the production of these papers had been made twelve months ago, it is quite possible that it could not have been acceded to. But, im the absence of any suggestion from any person of a desire to have these papers brought down to examine them or to look into them, or even a verbal request to see them, I do not understand upon what principle it is that the hon. gentleman now complains that the government has been remiss or has been attempting to hide something or to keep back from the information of the public, any of the papers in connection with this matter. No cause whatever, exists for seeking to attach to this government or to anybody, any blame in connection with the preparation or custody of these papers or the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy from the arbitration. Nobody has been in the least degree injured by it, and the whole gist of the complaint is, that whereas we submitted seven questions to the tribunal, we did not submit an eighth question in regard to the Bay of Fundy which would have been one in reference to which the United States told us distinctly they had nothing to arbitrate, and would not consent to any submission.


James William Maddin: Mr. Speaker, it is much to be deplored that the Minister of Justice did not reply to the able argument of the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) in the urbane and dignified manner which usually characterizes him. I cannot understand why the

Minister of Justice should charge the hon. gentleman (Mr. Jameson) with attempting to get a toehold of him in this debate; I cannot appreciate by what process of mental gymnastics or' intellectual athletics the minister should introduce a toehold into a debate on arbitration before the Hague Tribunal. I submit, Sir, that the hon. member for Digby, realizing that the wealthy and important [DOT]fisheries of the Bay of Fundy had been withdrawn from submission to the Hague, owed it to his constituents, to the people ,of his province, and to the whole Dominion to endeavour to ascertain the true reason why the Bay of Fundy was excepted pnd to fix the responsibility. The Minister of Justice complained that short notice had been given him, but I would remind the minister that when he saw that a paragraph appeared in the speech from the Throne attaching what I .consider a great deal of undue importance to this decision, and when on the 2nd of December he rose as Minister of Justice in this House to describe the proceedings before the tribunal, he did not give notice beforehand that he would do so, nor has he up to the present hour placed before this House the docu ments in connection with this alleged important arbitration.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When the Minister of Justice made his statement on the 2nd of December he laid on the table a report of the proceedings before the Hague Tribunal.


James William Maddin: All of which had been published in the press a long time before. My complaint is that on the 2nd of December when the minister discussed the treaty under which the tribunal was constituted, and the special agreement, he pointed out that the Bay of Fundy had been excluded, and he offered reasons why, but he did not submit to the House previous to that date a copy of the agreement, nor the correspondence under which the signed agreement was interchanged between the plenipotentiaries, or the correspondence concerning the final confirmation and ratification of the agreement as executed by Mr. Bryce and Mr. Bacon. I point out that article one of the treaty of the 4th of June, 1908, provides:
Differences which arise of a legal nature or relating to the interpretations of treaties between the two contracting parties and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy shall be referred to the permanent court of arbitration established at the Hague
Now, Mr. Ewart, K.C., in his letter to the press points out that the important functions discharged by the Minister of Justice, were the constituting of the Arbitration Committee of the Hague Tribunal, and framing the questions which were to be submitted to it, and there certainly being differences with regard to the Bay of Fundy why were they not submitted under article Mr. MADDIN.
one of that treaty. When the Minister of Justice spoke on the 2nd of December he was not obliged to explain why the Bay of Fundy had been excluded, but he did undertake to offer reasons, although he did not furnish to the House the documents which should have been furnished long before, and which he says were preserved with the greatest secrecy. Let me tell him that one of these very secret papers was laid before the imperial parliament, printed in September, 1909, and offered for sale by the King's Printer in Great Britain at a penny a copy. This was one of the documents, which according to the Minister of Justice, no one was to look at until June of 1910. But, the Minister of Justice not having laid these documents before the House on the 2nd of December, he got before the Canadian Club at Ottawa, and he offered them explanations in regard to the efficiency of this award.
He went before the Barristers' Society in Osgoode Hall in Toronto, and there again extolled the virtues of this splendid piece of arbitration at the Hague. Now,
I submit that it was not incumbent upon him to offer any reason why the Bay of Fundy had been excepted; but when he * did take it upon himself to explain how it was that it had been excepted, I submit that it was his duty to take this House into his confidence and tell them the true and correct reason. He did not do it when he spoke here on the 2nd of December; he did not do it when he addressed the Canadian Club; he did not do it when he spoke before the Bar Society of this province at Osgoode Hall; but he did it tonight in his effort to reply to the hon. member for Digby. When this matter was under discussion by the hon. minister on the 2nd of December, speaking of the Bay of Fundy, he said:
The colonists of Nova Scotia, I have no doubt, felt their case immensely strengthened and thought they would have behind them all the prestige and power of the British government itself in defending the claim they were making to the Bay of Fundy as part of their territorial waters. But in 1845, the Lord Aberdeen of that day, then Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, wrote a letter which had been prepared as a piece of diplomatic correspondence, after the most careful and matured consideration, in which while affirming the right of the colonies, while standing upon the opinion which had been expressed by their legal advisers and by the legal advisers of the British government, none the less, on the part of His Majesty's government, as a pure matter of grace and concession, expressed Ms willingness to forego, so far as the Bay of Fundy was concerned, the extreme right of the British subject in that regard, and assented to the use, by the fishermen of the United States, of the fisheries of the Bay of Fundy, in common with the inhabitants of the British colonies, upon which stipulation that as to the remainder

of the maritime coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, the claims of United States fishermen should cease. The representative of the United States government at the court of St. James, to whom that letter was addressed, acknowledged courteously the concession which had been made, but continued to argue that it was really no concession, but only the recognition of a right which the United States fishermen had. And I am sorry to say, that the stipulation which had been attached by the British government to the concession was, I think, at no time recognized by the United States, and their claims continued as strongly pressed as before to equal enjoyment in all the .other bays of the maritime coast of British North America. But the result of the argument made during the present summer and the award pronounced two months ago has been to uphold to the fullest extent the British contention and to demonstrate, I think, that if the concession regarding the Bay of Fundy had not been made in 1845, that bay, as well as the other large bays of our maritime provinces, would to-day be declared British territorial waters.
To-night the hon. Minister of Justice tells this House that he is glad and proud that this question with regard to the Bay of Fundy was not submitted to the tribunal. On the 2nd of December he was frank enough to say that if it had been submitted, the Bay of Fundy would have been declared to be British territorial waters.
There is one other aspect of this treaty which I propose to deal with, and that is the part of article 2 which says:
It is understood that such special agreement on the part of the United States will be made by the President of the United States by and with the consent and advice of the Senate thereof.
After these documents changed hands and were signed on the 27th of January, 1909, they went before the Senate of the United States on the 16th of February for confirmation, as required by this part of article 2. The same article goes on to say:
His Majesty's government reserves the right, before concluding a special agreement in any matter respecting a self-governing dominion of the British Empire, to obtain the concurrence therein of the government of that dominion.
Why, Sir, it is not so very long ago that the distinguished Prime Minister of this administration said: 'Where is the man or woman in Canada who will not be thankful for the day when this country will be rid of British diplomacy? ' Here is a provision expressly set out in the treaty of 1908 which gives this government. in regard to disputes which affect the Dominion of Canada, the right to affirm and approve of an agreement regarding this country before it becomes
effective. But the hon. Minister of Justice said: I was there as the appointee of Sir Edward Grey, responsible to him .alone; I was not there as representing the government. Who, Mr. Speaker, was representing this government at Washington? Who was acting on behalf of this administration? Who was going to discharge the duties that are placed upon this government by section 2 of the treaty? For the first time in our lives we were to be free from the difficulties involved in the clumsiness of British diplomacy, and were going to have a matter settled to our own liking. But how does it turn out? The hon. minister says that the British diplomats took charge of the case absolutely, every detail of it, that he was not responsible, that he had nothing to do with it. If that be so, he was remiss in his duty, or the government of this country was remiss in its duty, in not seeing that the agreement was approved of by this government as well as ratified by the Senate of the United States. The hon. minister says that the question of the Bay of Fundy was raised very early in the discussion. He says that an agreement of any kind will never be carried out in the market place, that it is not published in the press, that a lawyer would not think of drawing an agreement and publishing it, or if he did he would have to close his office. That is absolutely true; but, Sir, this was a matter affecting the people of Canada and the government of Canada; it had been negotiated up to the point at which the result of the agreement was submitted to the tribunal; the tribunal had passed judgment upon it; His Majesty had referred to it in the speech from the Throne; the hon. minister was to explain the operation of it, and I say that was the time to have come out in the market place and to have taken this House into his confidence and to have exhibited every document connected with the matter, in order that a fair and intelligent discussion might be had in regard to the award and the manner in which it has been arrived at. The hon. minister says that it was very early in the discussion that the question of the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy and the right to navigate the Gut of Can-so for peaceful purposes weTe introduced into the negotiations. He says that it was himself who suggested that the question of the Bav of Fundy be abandoned.
He offered also the suggestion that it is not unusual to incorporate in the interchange of notes an exception from the original agreement. Well, as a lawyer, I can understand how, when a document is drawn up, signed and sealed, and the parties subsequently agree to some exception or alteration, instead of disfiguring the original agreement by interlineations



4624*
they make a supplementary agreement, which could only be done in writing by an interchange of notes or otherwise. But that is not the position in this case. The hon. minister says that in the oral negotiations, an understanding was entered into that the Bay of Fundy should be excluded from the operation of question 5. Then I ask, if that were the case, why was it not expressed in the document signed and sealed on the 27th of January, 1909?


Robert Laird Borden: Hear, hear.
Mr. MADDljN. The agreement was signed on the 27th of January, 1909, and on the 6th of February we find Mr. Bryce writing to Mr. Bacon as follows:
I have the honour to inform you, under instructions from His Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, that I am now in a position to complete the formalities incident to the conclusion of the special agreement for submission to arbitration of the question of the fisheries on the North Atlantic coast. I transmit herewith signed copy of the agreement in my possession which, when signed on the 27th ultimo, was for the terms to be held in suspense, and I have to request you to be so good as to acknowledge its receipt in a note forwarding to me the copy now in your possession and to take note of the fact that formal delivery of the document lias now been duly effected by our action on behalf of our respective governments.
I shall not read the whole of this note because time will not permit, but suffice it to say that on February 6, 1909. ten days after the original agreement had been signed and sealed, signed copies of the subversion were exchanged between Mr. Root and Mr. Bryce as it went before the Hague Tribunal; and neither in the signed agreement nor in the notes exchanged under date of February 6, was there one syllable excepting the Bay of Fundy. I submit that , if, in the oral negotiations leading up to the execution of these documents, the understanding had been arrived at to except the Bay of Fundy, that should have appeared on the face of the agreement dated 'January 27; but if it was subsequently to be referred to in an interchange of notes, the time to have made that interchange was on February 6, when this exchange of signed documents took place between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Root, as shown by the White document brought down to the imperial parliament. This however, was not done. At a later date, on April 4, there was a letter written by Mr. Bryce to Mr. Bacon, who had succeeded Mr. Root. In that letter, Mr. Bryce says:
I have the honour to inform you that I have been instructed by His Majesty's principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to place on record, on behalf of His Majesty's government, with reference to the general ar-Mr. MADDIN.
bitration treaty just signed by you and myself, that the final sentence of article 2 has been inserted in order to reserve to both governments the freedom of action secured to United States government under their constitution until any agreement which may have been arrived at shall have been notified to be finally binding and operated by an exchange of notes.
To this Mr. Root replied on April 4, and in this correspondence there is no reference made to the exception of the Bay of Fundy. On March 4. 1909, Mr. Bryce wrote to Mr. Bacon as follows:
I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your note informing me that the-Senate of the United States has approved the special agreement for the referenec to arbitration of the questions relating to the fisheries on the North Atlantic coast and of the-terms of the resolution in which that approval is given.
It is now my duty to inform you that the government of His Britannic Majesty confirms the special agreement aforesaid, and in doing so confirms also the understanding arrived at by us that question 5 of the series of questions submitted for arbitration-namely,	from
where must be measured ' the 3 marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours ' referred to in the said articles-is submitted in its present form with the agreed understanding that no questions as to the Bay of Fundy, considered as a whole, apart from its bays'or creeks, or as to innocent passage through the Gut of Canso. is included in this question as one to be raised in the present arbitration.
Here on March 4, 1909, is the first in-'t-imation that the Bay of Fundy is to be excluded from the operation of this agreement to arbitrate.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to the last paragraph of the award of the tribunal with regard to question 5 In that paragraph the arbitrators say:
It is understood that nothing in these rules refers either to the Bay of _ Fundy, considered as a whole, apart from its bays and creeks, or as to the innocent passage through the. Gut of Canso, which were excluded V>- th* agreement made by exchange of notes between Mr. Bacon and Mr. Bryce, dated February 21, 1909, and March 4, 1909.
Now the hon. minister (Sir Allen Ayles-worth) tells us that it was by an oral agreement, which led up to the consummation of the special agreement dated 27th of January, that the Bay of Fundy was excepted.' We are told in a letter signed by Mr. Bryce, that the hay was excepted by an understanding had some time before, but the arbitrators discover an entirely different letter and one to which, up to the' present, hon. members on this side have not had access. There was a letter written on the 21st of February. 1909, and it was in that letter as well as in the letter of the

4tli March, that the Bay of Fundy was excepted. In reply to that letter of the 4th March, Mr. Bacon wrote to Mr. Bryce:
I have the honour to acknowledeg the receipt of your note of the 4th inst., in which you confirm the understanding in the matter of the special agreement submitting to arbitration the differences between the governments of the United States and Great Britain concerning the North Atlantic fisheries, as expressed in the resolution of the Senate of the 16th February, 1909, and as previously agreed upon by the interchange of notes with my predecessor of the 27th January, 1909.
It. is to be observed that Mr. Bacon refers to this understanding as expressed in an interchange of notes on the 27th January, 1909. The special agreement also sneaks for itself, which was executed on the 27th January, 1909. Both these authorities are in direct contradiction with the Minister of Justice, who says the exception of the Bay of Fundy was an oral understanding. but I submit that the significant part of the matter is this, and the hon. minister gave it to us to-night. For the first time he gave the real reason why the bay was excepted from the operation of this agreement. He said that the United States refused to arbitrate on any other condition and that the Senate of the United States on February 16 made the same exception of the Bay of Fundy. Well, the hon. minister suggested to the hon. member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) that if our foresight was as keen as our aftersight, we should be very superior men. And I must confess to him that, in preference to having the perfect subsequent knowledge of events, I would like to have that prescience by which the hon. minister and his friends arrived at the conclusion on the 27th of January that the Senate of the United States on the 16th of February, would strike out the Bay of Fundy from this arbitration.
So much with regard to the manner in which this agreement was brought before The Hague Tribunal. I would like to point . out to the minister that when he made the statement that he thought he should not discuss this question of the Bay of Fundy in view of the fact that there might be future negotiations, he is closing the door a little too late, and, perhaps, he has been talking too much already with regard to this award. At pages 73-74 of the oral argument, which took placq, in connection with this case, we find Sir Robert B. Finlay pressing upon the tribunal with regard to no less a sheet of water than the Bay of Fundy-and pressing with considerable force and effect-the speech made by Hon. Amos Tuck in the House of Representatives of the United States in 1851, as reported in the ' Congressional Globe.' Sir Robert quoted from this speech as follows:
From the first of September to the close of this season, the mackerel run near the shore.
and it is next to impossible for our vesesls to obtain fares without taking fish within the prohibited limit. We differ with England m regard to the measurement of these ' limits/ they claiming to run from 'headland to headland ' and we to follow the indentations of the coast. But the real difficulty is not here. The British have never taken a vessel as a trespasser when not within the limits which we acknowledge that we have renounced. They have given particular directions to the officers of their vessels not to do so, and the reason is plain. They know that if_ they exact a strict observance of our renunciation, on our own construction they break up our mackerel fishery. Hence, it would be a folly in them to raise an issue on the 'headland' doctrine, on which most people, I think, would hold our construction to be tlie true one.	'
Sir Robert Finlay says:
I am not going to stop to controvert the statements there made by Mr. Tuck, for I am citing him for the purpose of showing the facts with regard to the mackerel fishery, which led to the raising of this controversy. Mr. Tuck goes on:
I do not think it generally known that the whole difficulty about the fisheries is about our right to take mackerel. The cod fishing piivileges are adequate already; and no vessel in that business has ever been seized or interfered with. I think it is proper to go still fm tlier and to state frankly what, after a patient investigation of every source of authentic information within my reach, I believe ti be the real difficulty.
The truth is, our fishermen need absolutely and must have, the thousands of miles of shore fishery, which have been renounced, or they must always do an uncertain business. If our mackerel men are prohibited from going within three miles of the shore, and are forcibly kept away, (and nothing but force will do it), then they may as well give up tlieir business first as last. It will be always uncertain, and generally unsuccessful, however, well pursued.
Perhaps, I shall be thought to charge the commissioners of 1818 with overlooking our interests. They did so, in tlie important renunciation which I have quoted; but they are obnoxious to no complaints for doing so. In 1818,^ we took no mackerel on the coasts of the British possessions and there was no reason to anticipate that we should ever have occasion to do so. Mackerel were then found as abundantly on the coast of New England as anywhere in the world, and it was not until years after that this beautiful fish, in a great degree, left our waters. The mackerel fishery on the provincial coasts has principally grown up since 1838, and no vessel was ever licensed for that business in the United States till 1828.


So Sir Robert B.: Finlay, in pressing his argument before the arbitration tribunal at The Hague, quoted from Hon. Amos Tuck-I wonder with what success, if we subsequently submit the question as to His Britannic Majesty's rights in the Bay of Fundy to a npw tribunal. I wonder what effect the speeches of the minister on the 2nd December last, and before the Ontario

Bar Association on the 29th December, 1910, would have? Speaking before the Ontario Bar Association at Osgoods Hall, he said:
Take the whole coast line of Nova Scotia, never mind the Bay of Bundy for the present-
The Bay of Fundy was a tender spot with the minister when confronted with the whole array of the Ontario Bar.
-and we remember how it is indented every few miles with harbours and inlets of different dimensions, shapes and sizes, but all alike bays, and many of them across the entrance much more than sis miles in width. Now the United States fishermen wants to get into those bays-probably there is the best fishing there, at any rate he says when I am abreast a wide bay like the Baie des Chaleurs, or if you please, Miramichi bay in New Brunswick, Egmont bay in Prince Edward Island, or Mahone bay on the south coast of Nova Scotia, and I find a sheet of water which measured across from headland to headland, might be anywhere from 10 to 15 or 20 miles, and I am supposing I am in the centre of that 10 miles from the land on either side of me, and perhaps 100 miles from land ahead of me, do you mean to tell me I am in territorial waters? I am in the open sea, and 1 am not within his Britannic Majesty's dominions in America, and so in a case such as I have put, like the Baie des Chaleurs, which is 16 or 17 miles across at the entrance and up which you can sail for 70 miles without getting within three miles of either shore, the fishermen of the United States said, we are here fishing not under any treaty at all, we are here fishing by the common right of nations, because we are in the open sea exactly as much as though we were on the great banks of Newfoundland itself. And Nova Scotia, taking the opposite view and ablv supporting it by its learned attorney general of 70 years ago" Great Britain adopted that view *of Nova Scotia, and maintained at least from 1840, that the true method of measurement was by going from headland to headland right across the mouth of any hay regardless of its width. It was impossible to reconcile these two views.	'
I wonder how the following part would sound before a tribunal, which may subsequently be convened to determine our rights in the Bay of Fundy. He goes on to say:
In 1845, Great Britain as a concession, stating it to he a concession, gave up, or to use the language of the diplomatic letter which at that date Lord Aberdeen wrote to tho minister at St. James, of the United States, Great Britain decided to relax her right so far as the Bay of Fundy was concerned, and since then there has been no more difficulty over the Bay of Fundy; hut that was the extent of any relaxation which Great Britain was willing to make or ever did make. So in all the years, from 1840 to the present time, Gieat Britain had consistently maintained the contention that all these hays and inlets in the remainder of British North America, Mr. MADDIN.
that is to say, in what is to-day Canada, are bays and inlets, the right to enter which the fishermen of the United States have for ever renounced.	_
These were his observations with regard to the Bay of Fundy before the Bar Society of Ontario. I read his observations of December 2nd., in this House and he further makes the statement to-day that from. 1845 down to the present, no one has asserted on behalf of Great Britain, rights over the Bay of Fundy. I join issue with the minister when he makes an 'assertion of that kind. I would point out that a relaxation is a concession, but a concession is substantially more than a relaxation, the word concession is the broader of the two and covers the lesser term relaxation. The word relaxed, was used in Lord Aberdeen's letter of March 10, and as the minister pointed out on December 2nd, not only was this relaxation made, but it was made conditional, and the minister himself expressed regret that the conditions had not been complied with. Does the minister wish to treat members of this House as if they knew nothing of the law of contracts? One of the elementary principles of contracts is that it requires two persons to make a contract, and that there must be a consensus of mind between the two parties, that they must agree together upon the terms of the contract upon which they are entering ir there is no contract at all. No reasonable man, be he lawyer or layman, can take the 'correspondence of March 10, 1845, in which this relaxation took place, and in which it was expressly stated that the United States were to abandon for ever their claim to the coasts of other bays of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec, and read the reply of Mr. Everett, without arriving at the conclusion that the offer of relaxation at all events, as it was made on the part of Great Britain, for the purpose of reducing the friction then existing, was spurned by the American minister at St. James, and was never acted upon from that day to this. The hon. gentleman says that Britain has never assented her claims in regard to this matter. He pointed out in the House, as he did in Toronto, that that distinguished Nova Scotian, James W. Johnston, had prepared an argument on the headlands and submitted it in 1841 to the law officers of the Crown of the imperial government, in Great Britain, that the law officers, Her Majesty's advisers, approved and endorsed the views expressed in the memorandum set forth by Mr. Johnston, in 1886 the parliament of Canada passed an Act, and when it came to receive the assent of the Governor General, it was held in suspense, until correspondence had been exchanged with the home ..Secretary of State, in the old country, and then acting

on the advice of His Majesty's advisers in England that Statute of 1886, was assented to by the Governor General of Canada and became part of the statute law of this Dominion. Under that statute, assented to after inquiry and advice, the Dominion government undertook to regulate the fisheries oE the whole Bay of Fundy. Objection was raised to it but a few years afterwards, in 1870, Mr. Peter Mitchell, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, issued instructions to His Majesty's government vessels for the protection of Canadian fisheries as follows:
The limits within which you will, if necessary, exercise the power to exclude United States fishermen, or to detain American fishing vesels or boats, are for the present to be exceptional. Difficulties have arisen in former times with respect to the question, whether the exclusive limits should be measured on lines drawn parallel everywhere to the coast, and describing its sinuosities, or on lines produced from headland to headland across the entrances of bays, creeks or harbours. Her Majesty's government are clearly of opinion that, by the convention of 1818, the United States have renounced the right of fishing, not only within three miles of the colonial shores, but within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of any British bay or creek. It is however, the wish of Her Majesty's government neither to concede, nor for the present enforce, any rights in this respect which art. in their nature open to any serious ques-t;on. Until further instructed, therefore, you will not interfere with any American fishermen, unless found within three miles of the shore, or within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a bay or creek which is less than ten geographical miles in width. In the case of any other bay, as the Bay of Chaleurs, for example, you will not admit any United States fishing vessel or boat, or any American fishermen, inside of a line drawn across at that part of such bay where its width does not exceed ten miles.
On June 6th, 1876, Lord Grenville telegraphed to the Governor General as follows :
Her Majesty's government hopes that the United States fishermen will not be for the present prevented from fishing, except within three miles of land, or in bays which are less than six miles broad at the mouth.
The result was that the Hon. Peter Mitchell modified his instructions on the 27th of June, 1870, making the last paragraph read:
In the case of any other bay, as Bay des Chaleurs, for example, you will not interfere with any United States fishing vessel or boat, o.- any American fishermen, unless they are found within -three miles of the shore.
I submit to the minister that, as the letter written by Lord Aberdeen on the 10th of March, 1845, contains an assertion of Britain's rights in the Bay of Fundy, and a statement that, as a matter of grace and favour, these rights would be relaxed in
favour of the United States, granting American fishermen common fishing in the Bay of Fundy, on a certain condition, contained in a proviso which was never accepted or acted upon, that relaxation can not be construed as conveying any right to the United States. What does he -say with regard to these instructions with reference to the Baie des Chaleurs? On the 27th of June, 1870, the Canadian government acting on instructions from Lord Grenville, issued instructions which in specific terms say:
As to the Bay of Chaleur, for example, you will not interfere with any United States fishing vessel or boat or any American fishermen, unless they are found within three miles of the shore.
Was not that a. broader, a greater relaxation of right than Lord Aberdeen had made in 1845?. There is this difference also that it was an unqualified concession. There were no stipulations, there was nothing that the United States was obliged to do in order to enjoy the fisheries of the Baie des Chaleurs three miles from the shore.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Do I understand my hon. friend that this document was communicated to the American authorities? This was a document issued by Lord Granville to the Canadian government and it was purely and simply a question between the imperial government and the Canadian government.


James William Maddin: It was a pronouncement by Lord Granville to the authorities of the Dominion of Canada with regard to what he conceded at that time to be American rights in the Baie des Chaleurs. He gave instructions not to interfere with American fishermen.


Robert Laird Borden: The instructions were publicly given, were they not? They became a public document of state.


James William Maddin: They were public and were subsequently used against the British government in the Halifax award from which I am reading them at the present time. In the matter to which I referred a few moments ago, in 1886 when this government legislated with regard to the whole of the waters of the Bay of Fundy, there was no question at all rasied by the government of the United States, and I wish to say in connection with this matter that the United States did not at any time argue and have not argued their rights to fish in common with British fishermen in the Bay of Fundy. They have not argued that they had the right to fish by virtue of the relaxation contained in Lord Aberdeen's letter of 1845. I want to refer jou, Mr. Speaker, for a moment to Mr. Everett's reply to that communication. I desire to call attention

to the exact words that were used in the Aberdeen-Everett correspondence oi 1845. This correspondence grew out of the claims that were set up with regard to the seizure of the ' Arguis,' in what is sometimes called St. Ann Banks off the coast of Cape Breton, and also in regard to the seizure of the 'Washington' in the Bay of Fundy. It was during the course of the correspondence in *connection with these seizures-seizures which were being vigorously protested against by the United States, and out of which grew so much of the friction of that time-that the letters to which I desire particularly to draw attention were written. Lord Aberdeen wrote a letter on the 10th March, in which, after some preliminary statements, he says:
The undersigned has accordingly much pleasure in announcing to Mr. Everett, the determination to which Her Majesty's government have come to relax in favour of United States fishermen that right which Great Britain has hitherto exercised, of excluding those fishermen from the British portion of the Bay of Fundy, and they are prepared to direct their colonial authorities to allow, henceforward, the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.
There was an offer with a condition attached to it and we all know that in order to get the benefit of that offer it should have been accepted and the stipulations and provisions attached to it should have been complied with. There could be no evasive reply which in years afterwards could be construed as an acceptance. No contract is complete without an offer and an acceptance. Here then we have the offer on the part of Lord Aberdeen to relax certain rights and making certain stipulations with regard thereto. How does Mr. Everett treat this situation? He says that:
While he desires, however, without reserve, to express his sense of the amicable disposition evinced by Her Majesty's government on this occasion in relaxing in favour of the United States the exercise of what, after deliberate reconsideration, fortified by high legal authority, is deemed an unquestioned right of Her Majesty's government, the under-nigned would be unfaithful to his duty did he omit to remark to Lord Aberdeen that no arguments have at any time been adduced to shake the confidence of the government of the United States in their own construction of the treaty. While they have ever been prepared to admit that in the letter of one expression of that instrument there is some reason for claiming a right to exclude United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy (it being difficult to deny to that arm of the sea the name of ' bay.' which long geographical usace has assigned to it), they have ever Mr. MADDIN.
strenuously maintained that it is only on their own construction of the entire article that its known design in reference to the regulation of the fisheries admits of being carried into effect.
There is no acceptance, Mr. Speaker, of the offer which is submitted by Lord Aberdeen. But now let us see how he spurns this generous offer with contempt. He says:
The undersigned does not make this observation for the sake of detracting from the liberality evinced by Her Majesty's government in relaxing from what they regard as their right, but it would be placing his own government in a false position to accept as mere favour that for which they have so long and strenuously contended as due to them under the convention.
He spurned the offer. He said:	We
have been fishing there, you have seized our vessels and now you put a proposition up to us and call it a relaxation of your right. We do not acknowledge that you have such a right because we have been exercising our calling there as a matter of right. On the 25th March, fifteen days later, Mr. Everett wrote to Mr. Calhoun, the United States Secretary of State, referring to the correspondence which had taken place between himself and Lord Aberdeen as follows:
I thought it proper, in replying to Lord Aberdeen's note, to recognize in ample terms the liberal spirit evinced by Her Majesty's government, in relaxing from what they consider [DOT] their right. At the same time I felt myself bound to say that the United States could not accept as a mere favour what they had always claimed as a matter of right, secured by the treaty.
Yet, in 1909, for the first time, since 1845, we find in the correspondence of the British plenipotentiary in these negotiations at Washington that a construction was put upon that old correspondence which is to give it the meaning of a concession by which we are alleged to have abandoned our rights in those large and important waters. The minister has used the term ' concession ' repeatedly in the House, and before the Bar Society at Osgoode Hall. There was a relaxation which was spurned by the American minister and which they never accepted up to the present time. When the question of the fishing rights in the Bay of Fundy was suddenly dragged into the proceedings of the Halifax award in 1877, Mr. John S. D. Thompson (afterwards Sir John Thompson)-than whom no abler constitutional and international lawyer ever sat in this House,-contended before that tribunal that His Britannic Majesty's subjects had exclusive rights of fishing in the Bay of Fundy. The American contention then was not based on the correspondence of 1845 and the alleged re-

laxation, but, on the decree of Mr. Bates, who was the umpire in the case of the seizure of the ' Washington.' In the ' Washington ' case the United States selected a representative and Great Britain selected a representative, and these two agreed upon Mr. Bates as umpire, and the tribunal met in 1856. Mr. Bates was not a lawyer; he was an American citizen, but at that time he was the junior member of an English banking firm residing in London, and having been agreed upon as umpire he rendered the decision in the ' Washington ' case. The question submitted to that tribunal did not in any sense involve territorial rights in the Bay of Fundy; it was merely a question involving money damages for the seizure of the ' Washington ' in the Bay of Fundy, and Mr. Bates found for $3,000 damages, but he also found something he was not asked to find, and which probably neither country would have entrusted him to adjudicate upon, namely, that the vessel was seized on the high seas. As a matter of fact the ' Washington ' was seized on the western side of Grand Manan island near the entrance to Campobello bay in the Bay of Fundy, and almost three miles outside of Grand Manan. The Minister of Justice told us to-night that he thought the British case would have been prejudiced had we set up claims to a great bay like the Bay of Fundy which is nearly 60 miles across. As a matter of fact since the declaration of 1783 by which Americans reserved their rights to fish in certain of His Majesty's North Atlantic waters, no one has ever contended on behalf of Britain that she had any exclusive rights in that part of the Bay of Fundy which stretches 60 miles across. The minister was deceiving the House-whether he was doing it intentionally or not is a matter only known to himself-but when he said the Bay of Fundy was 60 miles across, he was speaking of the width of the bay at a point from near Brier island over to near the state of Maine, and it was never contended by Britain that she could treat the intervening waters there as territorial waters. What Britain did claim, and what the minister conceded would have been awarded to her had it been submitted, was the right to draw a straight line from headland to headland within British territory. Under the Treaty of Ghent the boundary line between the United States and Canada in the Bay of Fundy was defined as running at a point midway between the island of Grand Manan and the coast of the eastern portion of Maine. Under the British contention on this definition, we would draw our headland line from Grand Manan to Brier island, and from Grand Manan across Passamaquoddy bay to the nearest headland on the western part of the province of New Brunswick. This was all that any one ever claimed on behalf of Britain and the minister knows,
or ought to know, that in the argument before the Hague Tribunal maps and plans were submitted which show a line betweeen these points and which show the length of that line to be 24 miles and not 60 miles. I submit that when a straight line is drawn from Brier island on the coast of Nova Scotia over to the island of Grand Manan, and from the island of Grand Manan to the nearest point in the province of New Brunswick that that is the true headland line which has been recognized at least in principle by the Hague Tribunal, and which as the minister admitted would have been drawn by that tribunal in connection with the Bay of Fundy, had the Bay of Fundy not been excepted.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is St. Mary's bay outside or inside the limit which has been mentioned by the hon. gentleman?


James William Maddin: Does the minister mean outside of the line drawn from Brier island to Grand Manan?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I refer to the points the hon. gentleman has spoken of.


James William Maddin: Well, St. Mary's bay is outside of that line; it is almost 100 miles outside. The hon. minister said that we- that is, I presume, those who had charge of Britain's case-were undertaking a very great job in trying to get The Hague Tribunal to recognize our doctrine in regard to bays, and intimated in this House and in the discussion of this matter outside of the House, that some great and new principle of international law had been announced. Why, Sir, the method to be pursued in measuring bays and headlands laid down by this tribunal is as old as Grotius, one of the oldest authorities on international law. The hon. minister asks, wherein is it there is a dereliction of duty on the part of the government in connection with this matter, and, in answer to the hon. member for Digby, who wishes to know what our rights in the Bay of Fundy were, he said they were exactly what they were before the agreement of the 27th of January was signed, no more and no less. No one could answer a question more unsatisfactorily. What does he concede to be our rights in the Bay of Fundy under the treaty of 1818? What effect does he think this correspondence of 1845 had with regard to our rights, in the light of the claims subsequently made by this parliament, which have never been successfully refuted by the people of the United States? It was of the greatest importance to the people of this country that this question should have been determined by this tribunal when it sat last summer. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Digby, the treaty of' 1908, by which these matters were to be adjusted, is to remain in force only five years. Two

years from next June it will expire. Does the minister hope to get the difficulties with respect to the Bay of Fundy settled before that time? I submit that he was guilty of a dereliction of duty in connection with this matter when he permitted the Bay of Fundy to be excepted at all. The Senate of the United States had no right to put a rider on the agreement excepting it, because article 1 of the treaty of 1908, which had been concurred in by the Senate of the United States, expressly stipulated for the adjudication of just such disputes as have been continually arising with regard to Canadian-British rights in the Bay of Fundy, and it was the duty of the minister to have pointed out to the United States ministers the terms of that treaty, and that, in adding to the agreement the rider excepting from the adjudication of the tribunal a disputed question under the treaty of 1818, they were violating the treaty of 1908, which they themselves had ratified. The question of fishing in the Bay of Fundy is one which is important to the people of the whole Dominion of Canada, but more especially to those people who inhabit the shores along the bay in the provinces of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. The Bay of Fundy every year produces in the neighbourhood of $1,000,000 worth of fish to Canadian fishermen. When we estimate the number of fishermen from the United States who trawl these waters and fish them from one end of the year to the other, and in violation of the Canadian fishery regulations, we may fairly estimate that the Bay of Fundy, from the headlands claimed by the British authorities, yields up each year $2,000,000 worth of fish, and when the minister stood by and neglected to have the question of the right to fish in that great and valuable fishery go before the tribunal he was guilty of a dereliction of duty. I want to point out to him that, square mile for square mile the Bay of Fundy, within a line drawn from Briar Island to Grand Manan, is richer than the richest belt of soil between the lakes and the Rocky mountains, and he might just as well have ceded up an equal area of the prairie provinces to the United States as to have permitted their people to come in and enjoy in common with us the right to exploit those fisheries, which, as a matter of fairness and equity, belong to the people of His Majesty's dominions. The minister thinks that, perhaps, if he had insisted on including the Bay of Fundy in the question submitted to this tribunal he might have prejudiced the Canadian case. In fact, he expressed his pride that he himself was the one to suggest that the Bay of Fundy should be struck out. I can hardly see how he can reconcile the wish he expressed to-night with the statement he made in this House on the 2nd of De-Mr. MADDIN.
cember, -when he said that had the question of the Bay of Fundy been submitted to the tribunal, no doubt it would have been declared to be British territorial waters. I s'ubmit that, as the Minister of Justice of this country charged with safeguarding the interests of Canada, it was his duty, even if we had only a substantial colour of right, to have submitted that question of right for the consideration and adjudication of that tribunal. How have the United States, in their negotiation with us in the past, dealt with their claims? Have they considered their claims from time to time to be shadowy? Do we not know that, after promising to admit our fish free into the United States, they imposed a duty and then pretended that it was on the tin boxes that contained the fish, and not on the fish? Do we not remember how, on another occasion, they placed a tax on the tonnage of the vessels passing through their canals, and then claimed that it was aimed at the cargoes and not at the vessels? If the minister will take a lesson from a writer on international law, he will find in ' Blackwood's Magazine ' for October, 1893, an article on ' The United States in International Law/ in which it is said:
Further, the United States in consistent pursuance of the older view of international law, have shown a remarkable tendency to assert the very oldest titles and claims that the prehistoric view of law would support by the most shadowy interpretation.
(a)	Thus -the right of the United States to the navigation of the Mississippi, as against the claims of Spain, were based on the rights obtained through France by the voyage and discoveries of La Salle, as well as upon ' the sentiment written in deep characters upon the heart of man/ i.e., the law of nature as understood in America.
(b)	Thus the right to navigate the St. Lawrence as against the territorial authority of Great Britain, was based upon r natural law and obvious necessity,' not admissible grounds in diplomatic negotiations.
(c)	Thus the claims of the United States to the Oregon territory were based on the shadowy claims of Spain, themselves based on papal bulls, and those of doubtful authority in view of previous bulls to Portugal.
(d)	Thus the right of America to Texas is also based on the traditional landing of Lasalle at the Bay of Esperitu Santo.
(e)	Thus the claims of the American fishermen to use the British fisheries in North America was based on the previous condition of citizenship of the British Empire, from which they had deliberately- cut themselves adrift.
(f)	Thus the American claim to jurisdiction on Behring Sea was based on claims which Russia had put forward for quite other purposes than the prosecution of the seal fisheries, which had been repudiated by the United States at the time, ^ but which were resuscitated when the Americans became possessed of the Russian territory.

Thus we find the United States ready to blow hot and cold in matters that involve international rights. And I submit that by all the rights of international law- and if the hour were not so late I would take up some of the authorities from Gro-tius down to the present-the doctrine of the headland rights has been recognized. The tribunal which recently rendered its decision of this matter certainly dealt a very vigorous blow to the party which boasts so exulting'ly of the diplomacy of the hon. minister because, in referring to clause 5 of the argument of the United States regarding question 5, the tribunal finds as follows:
In this latter regard it is further contended by the United States that such exceptions only should be made from the application of the three-mile rule to bays as are sanctioned by conventions and established usage.
That would apply to the Bay of Fundy.
That all exceptions for which the United States of America were responsible are so sanctioned; and that His Majesty's government are unable to provide evidence to show that the bays concerned by the treaty of 1818 could be claimed as exceptions on these grounds either generally, or except possibly in one or two cases specifically.
The award goes on to say:
But the tribunal while recognizing that conventions and established usage might be considered as the basis for claiming as territorial those bays which on this ground might be called historic bays, and that such claim should be held valid in the absence of any principle of international law on the subject, nevertheless is unable to apply this, a con-trario, so as to subject the bays in question to the three-mile rule, as desired by the United States;
(b) Because neither should such relaxations of this claim, as are in evidence, be construed as renunciations of it; nor should omissions to enforce the claim in regard to bays as to which no controversy arose, be so construed. Such a construction by this tribunal would not only be intrinsically inequitable but internationally injurious; in that it would discourage conciliatory diplomatic transactions and encourage the assertion of extreme claims in their fullest extent.
I submit that the relaxation contained in Lord Aberdeen's letter of the 10th . March, 1845, cannot be construed as running perpetually. It has since been renounced by Great Britain and by this^ parliament with the acquiescence of Britain, when the late Sir John Thompson was Minister of Justice. It seems to me that this decree expresses a principle from which it will be very awkward indeed for any future tribunal to exclude the Bay of Fundy from being declared British territorial waters. Our difficulty, however,_ is that there is no possible prospect of having the rights of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick insisted upon by this government. If the waters of the Bay of Fundy are British territorial waters, we should make fishing regulations with regard to them. We can control these fisheries, we can preserve and enrich them, we can also exclude all other people than His Britannic Majesty's subjects from the right to fish within these waters. In view of the regulation of these fisheries, the matter is sufficiently important to warrant the people of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick in insisting on a speedy determination of our rights with regard to this -important bay.
My hon. friend from Digby is not the only person in Nova Scotia anxious to get some information with regard to our rights. In the Morning ' Chronicle ' of January 17, there is an article under a two-column heading in letter^ of three-quarters of an inch long, entitled ' Steam Trawling in the Bay of Fundy.' That article is as follows :	,
(Special to the ' Morning Chronicle.')
Ottawa, Jan. 17.-The Department of Marine has asked the Justice Department for an opinion as to whether under the terms of the award of the Hague Tribunal which dealt with the North Atlantic fisheries case, the Bay of Fundy should be considered as territorial waters from which Canada can exclude fishermen of foreign countries.
In a letter setting forth the facts of the case, Mr. Alexander Johnston, Deputy Minister of Marine and Fisheries, wrote to Mr. Newcombe, Deputy Minister of Justice, on November 4 last, pointing out that the Fisheries Department was anxious to regulate steam trawling in the Bay of Fundy and other coast waters, but unless the government had authority to shut out American _ or other foreign trawlers, it would not be wise to make regulations prohibiting steam trawling in the bay by Canadian fishermen.
Mr. Johnston pointed out that up to 1853 Canada had asserted its right to control the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy and to regard it as a closed sea. In pursuance of this right an American fishing vessel named the ' Washington ' had been seized when fishing in the bay six miles off the coast. By the treaty concluded in 1853 between Great Britain and the United States, the question as to the right of Canada to thus seize the vessel was submitted to the adjudication of an umpire jointly chosen by the American and British governments. This umpire was a Mr. Bates, who was a junior member of a United States banking firm in England. His decision was that the bay could not be considered as territorial waters, and under his award Canada was compelled to pay damages for the seizure of the vessel.
Mr. Johnston urges that this decision should not be considered as final, inasmuch as it was more particularly concerned with a pecuniary claim, and inasmuch as the recent Hague decision seems to lay down the general principle that the' coast line should run from headland to headland. The Bay of Fundy was


*TOHN S. EWART,
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, January 17. 1911.
Mr. Speaker, I submit, in view of the disclosures made in that correspondence given to the public in January last, it ill becomes the Minister of Justice to suggest to a layman like my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), that he peruse the oral argument. That letter, which was written under such painful circumstances, forced with great regret and reluctance from the man who was charged with preparing the case for His Britannic Majesty, was evoked, no doubt, by the fact, that the minister had gone up and down this country, speaking before the Canadian Club, before the Bar Association, in this House on December 2, last, and in Halifax, during the Christmas holidays, lauding men who were not entitled to his laudation, paying tribute where it was not due, heaping encomiums upon men who were not worthy of them.
It was under circumstances such as these that this letter was so . reluctantly and painfully given to the press of the country in self-defence by one man who had contributed more than all others combined to such success as we may be able to gather from the award- that that tribunal handed down last summer. It does appear to me that the Minister of Marine and the Minister of Justice might very well have so arranged their case as to have submitted the case of His Majesty's subjects in the Bay of Fundy to that tribunal. There is no doubt that under the first section of the treaty of 1908 which was solemnly entered into by the United States and ratified by the Senate such questions as our rights in the Bay of Fundy were intended to be dealt with. It was not legitimately possible for the United States Senate to insert that rider excepting the Bay of Fundy from the operation of this award. The minister should have stood by the people of this country and by the rights of the fishermen of the North Atlantic coasts of Canada. But, Sir, there were contingencies, the minister has served some considerable time in the public life of this country. I suppose he was looking forward to the time when he would be retiring from public life, and when , this rider was introduced into the .agreement by the Senate of the United States, and it was submitted to the Minister of Justice he as the man who was responsible as he told us to-day, only to the imperial authorities, agreed to it; but, Sir, we had then the first opportunity in our diplomatic relations since confederation of asserting our colonial rights and the minister who was there for the purpose of protecting those rights, lamentably failed in preserving to the people of the maritime provinces the fishing rights which belonged to them in the Bay of Fundy, and it is due to his utter disregard of these rights that the Bay of Fundy was not described in the
[Stage Direction]
award as territorial waters. The minister could have submitted in reply to the resolution brought down in the Senate of the United States that he was not prepared to leave this question affecting the Bay of Fundy open for years to come, he should not have permitted this question, which has been an open question since 1818, to go unsettled. As the price of meat goes up in the United States and Canada, fish is becoming more and more a staple article of diet and the fisheries of the North Atlantic coast of Canada are becoming more valuable every year. We will never be able to preserve those fisheries in the Bay of Fundy in these modern days of steam trawl unless we assert our rights and treat the Bay of Fundy as territorial waters. The Minister of Justice had the opportunity of doing this but he comes home from the Hague and seems to feel quite satisfied with the result as indicated in the conclusion of his speech before the Ontario Bar Association when he said:	[DOT]
I am sure we on our part, with our fellows in Newfoundland on their part, will loyally submit to and support the decision where it is against us; and I am sanguine to believe that with equal loyalty the decision will he supported in the United States upon the points which may seem adverse to them. I think that this world-wide and more than century long difficulty which undoubtedly on more than one occasion ha.s brought the two great Anglo-Saxon nations to the very verge of war itself, has been definitely and finally settled, and I welcome the view that there is at least an end to this long difference and a great step forward taken in the work of international arbitration which looks to the day of universal peace. (Great applause.)
I wish to say that the fishing rights of His Britannic Majesty's subjects in the Bay of Fundy according to the minister's own statement to-night are exactly no more and exactly no less than they were before the agreement was entered into which submitted the questions under consideration to the tribunal at the Hague in June last. It was clearly the duty of the minister to have replied to the Senate of the United States that he would not entertain the arbitration of these questions unless the Bay of Fundy were included in the reference. We all know very well how cases are brought before tribunals. If in any British Court of Appeal counsel cannot agree on the questions which are to be submitted to the tribunal, the court may be moved to come to their assistance and adjust the questions between them, and so the minister in this instance in answer to the proviso that was inserted in the Senate of the United States could have said:	No,
we will not arbitrate the remaining coast waters except the Bay of Fundy, but will submit the whole case and leave it to the tribunal to say whether or not we have such Mr. MADDIN.
rights in the Bay of Fundy as entitle us to have them defined. He could have appealed to the very tribunal constituted for that purpose and have had that tribunal fix the case in spite of the Senate of the United States, because the Senate of the United States had already affirmed a treaty for the express purpose of dealing with such questions as arose in the Bay of Fundy. Why did he not do it? It is said of Sir Charles Tupper that when he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries on one occasion on which negotiations were being conducted at Washington, when Mr. Joseph Chamberlain was associated with him as His Majesty's representative from England, when the British diplomat tried to make concessions which Sir Charles considered unfair to Canada, Sir Charles returned to his hotel, asked what time the train left for New York and Ottawa, ordered his trunks to be packed and said he was leaving in the morning. This brought them to time, they came down and suggested that he remain, they modified the question involved and the negotiations were carried on. The Minister of Justice owed it to the fishermen of eastern Canada that he should have backed them up rather than submit the people of this country to the humiliation and the shame of having left unsettled and undefined the rights of His Britannic Majesty's subjects in these coast waters. He was looking into the near future when he was about to retire from public life. Does he realize that if there was no arbitration there would be no knighthood, and that there should be an arbitration in any event; that if sacrifices were to_ be made in order to bring about the arbitration it was as well that the sacrifices should be made against the fishermen of eastern Canada, and that those of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick might as well make the sacrifices as any other of His Majesty's subjects.
So I submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the presence of the diplomats of the United States and of the plenipotentiaries and ministers who -were gathered at the Hague, it must have humiliated the people of Canada to realize the fact that such important rights as we have in the .Bay of Fundy would go undefined and unsettled now for a period of ninety-three yeans, that they should remain in the same position as they were ninety-three years ago, and that, after a tribunal had been especially constituted to determine and define those rights. The minister will never again in his public career have an opportunity of having those rights defined. The Hon. Amos Tuck, in the House of Representatives in the United States, said that it was only force that -would keep the United States fishermen out of the Bay of Fundy. Was the minister

afraid of this veiled threat on the part of United States diplomacy in 1852? Why Sir, if our rights in Canadian waters are to be dealt with in this light, if they are to be sacrificed in such an indifferent way as this, if the United States can come in under a pretense of right and exercise fishing privileges in our territorial waters, foT well nigh a hundred years, and if we are to stand by and permit them to enjoy those privileges without protest, we had better destroy our armies and navies and use our money for some moTe peaceful purpose. For what object are we spending $20,000,000 a year for a navy and $800,000 for agriculture, if our rights in the fisheries of the Bay of Fundy are to be set aside, notwithstanding this treaty, at the instance of the Senate of the United States? Evidently the Canadian navy is not exciting the American diplomats to view with any dismay any consequences that might arise from the assertion of British rights in the Bay of Fundy or they would not probably have insisted on the withdrawal of the Bay of Fundy from the matters which were to go before the tribunal.
On motion of Mr. Brodeur, debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Brodeur, House adjourned at 11 o'clock p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, March 6, 1911.