PROTECTION OF RAILWAY EMPLOYEES.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo) moved for leave to introduce a Bill (No. 114) to provide for the protection of railway employees. He said: The object of this Bill is to provide protection and accommodation for the carpenters who are employed on the different railway systems of this country. They have complained to me that, though they are permanently employed on the various railways, proper accommodation and protection are not provided for them. The object of this Bill is to compel the companies to
[Stage Direction]


provide such accommodation and protection. I understand they are negotiating with the companies at the present time; and though I informed them that it was impossible for this legislation to pass the House this session, they requested that the Bill be presented and printed.
Mr. MACDONELL.: Does the Bill apply only to carpenters employed on the railway?	-


Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo).: Yes, those engaged in repair work.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.	'	.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated toy an asteiik].

Mr. HUGHES:: ]. Is the government aware, as alleged, that a body of the Canadian militia from the 10th Hussars, in uniform and armed, as well as a corps authorized and armed under the Militia Act, the Papal Zouaves of Quebec, both turned out and received the Papal Legate with a salute, and acted as a guard of honour to the ecclesiastic on the occasion of his visit to Quebec during the past summer? _
2.	If so, were these corps authorized by the government to so turn out?
3.	Will the government ascertain by whose authority such corps were turned out?_
I.	Is it in accordance with the Militia Act and the King's regulations and orders, for troops to turn out on such occasions?
5.	Is there any objection to regiments or other bodies of troops in uniform and fully armed, turning out and doing honours to the Grand Masters of the Loyal Orange Association or other good and true men, as well as forming guards of honour, and marching on the 12th of July, in the processions of the Loyal Orange Association, an association whose object is the perpetuation of the principles of civil and religious liberty?
6.	Why was there no guard of honour to meet and act as escort to the Right Honourable and Right Rev. Bishop Ingram, who came to Canada as the accredited representative of His Majesty, King George V., during the past summer ?
7.	Is it the intention of the government to inquire into the irregularities which occurred during the past summer in the use of troops in connection with sectarian demonstrations, and discipline those who have transgressed the law ?
8.	Is it the purpose of the government to require that no bodies of troops shall be permitted to take part, armed and in uniform, in any procession or demonstration not under the auspices of the state, without special authority from the government?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.


Mr. SMITH (Nanaimo).: 3.	The corps turned out for a voluntary church service.
4.	The service was performed as a voluntary church parade, and not officially recognized or approved.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	The matter was never brought up.
7.	There was no transgression of the law, therefore, no inquiry is needed.
8.	All necessary instructions are contained in the Militia Act and King's Regulations and Orders.


CANADIAN CONTINGENT TO THE CORONATION.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What rule or principle will the government adopt in selecting the officers and men of the Canadian contingent to the Coronation ?
2.	What will be the probable number of officers and men of said contingent?
3.	What other persons will be selected to represent the Canadian government?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: My deputy informs me that the answer was sent in last week in the regular way.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I inquired of the clerk, and he cannot find it.


Frederick William Borden: I will make further inquiry.


GUNS AT ESQUIMALT.
*Mr. BARNARD:: 1 Has the government removed from Esqui-malt either or both the large guns left there by the imperial authorities, and which were intended to be mounted at Signal Hill?
2.	If not, has the government any intention of moving either or both of said guns?
3.	What is the reason of such removal or intention to remove, and where is or are such gun or guns to be removed to?


Frederick William Borden: Matters relating to the defence of the country are not made public. These are among the most powerful guns in the Dominion of Canada. While I have to say this publicly, I would be very glad to acquaint my hon. friend privately what the intention of the government is with reference to these guns.


George Henry Barnard: Is the minister of the opinion that he can move one of these very heavy guns without the country knowing anything about it, particularly through a considerable section of the population?


Frederick William Borden: As I stated to the House last year in answer to my hon. friend, the matter has been considered by the department in connection with the War Office, and a final decision has been reached as to what shall be done with the guns. I am prepared to tell my hon. friend exactly how the matter stands, and to show him the papers and all the correspondence; but I do not think it is desirable to publish them.


DOMINION LANDS IN PROVINCE OF . SASKATCHEWAN.
*Mr. LAKE:: 1.	Wliat were approximately the gross receipts, cash and scrip, on account of Dominion lands revenue for the province of Saskatchewan for the twelve months ending 31st December, 1910?
2.	What was approximately the cost of administration in respect of the same for the said province?
3.	What was approximately the cost of surveys in the province for the said period?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	$1,163,597.18.
2.	$264,600.
3.	$195,692. This expenditure does not include anything for administration expenses at Ottawa which during the year ended the 31st December, 1910, amounted to $883,427.24.


IMPORTATION OF CANNED PEAS.
*Mr. MARSHALL:: How many cases of canned peas were imported into Canada in the fiscal years 1908 and 1909, giving the countries from which they come, and the amount received from each ?


Mr. PATERSON:: Canned peas are not separately enumerated in the classification of imports. They are included in the item ' Vegetables, and baked beans in cans or other air-tight packages, n.o.p.' and it is impracticable to segregate the peas from the many other articles in the item.


APPLICATION FOR HOMESTEAD BY GEO. BELLEROSE.
Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: 1.	Upon what date did Mr. George Belle-rose make application for homestead on which he has since resided in Chilliwack district?
2.	If existence of timber lease is the reason for delay, to what extent does timber under lease encroach on homestead applied for?
3.	If not dealt with before proclamation of proposed new regulations, in what position will this application be?
4.	Is it the intention of the minister to deal with this application before the new regulations are proclaimed?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	According to the records here, George Bellerose first wrote on the 8th January, 1900, asking for entry for the south half of section 19-22 E.C.M. There is no record here of his having made a formal application for entry for any portion of this land outside of the timber berth in the manner provided, nor does it appear why he has not made a formal application.
2.	Timber berth 55 covers 10 acres in the south-east corner of the said land, and has not been open to entry.
102i
3.	An informal application or an application not granted has no standing.
4.	The case of George Bellerose and a number of other settlers along the edge of timber berth 55 are now under consideration.


TIMBER LICENSES IN NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT.
*Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster):: 1.	Have any petitions been received against renewal of timber licenses for berths Big A, Little A, and B. 61, in township 29, New Westminster district? If so, by whom signed, and what are the grounds stated?
2.	Wliat reply if any has been made to the petitioners ?
3.	Has any official of the government made a report recently on these timber berths? If so, to what effect?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	A petition was received dated April 2, 1910, signed by W. R. Barge and 166 others, residents of Rosedale and Chilliwack, citing that it had been heard that an application for extension of time on certain licenses covering timber berths known and described as- big ' A 1 and little ' A ' and ' B. 61 ' was being considered by the department, and asking that no extensions be granted on the said licenses on the ground that the land covered by said licenses is very valuable for agricultural purposes, that the best timber was taken off several years ago, and that the development of the surrounding district is retarded through the fact that this particular land is withheld from the privileges of settlement.
2.	The petition was replied to 18th April, 1910, setting forth that while the department has full appreciation of the position of the settlers in question, and every desire to meet their wishes, at the same time the department is equally charged with the administration of the timber as well as that of the land, and that arrangements were in course to have inspections made of these, and other berths similarly placed, with a view to giving special consideration to the relative claims and necessities of conflicting land owners and limit holders.
3.	Timber berths 61, ' A ' and ' A ' (6) were examined by H. 0. Wallin an official of the department, who reported September 15, 1910, concerning the timber thereon that there could be cut of fir, 7,551,200 feet board measure; cedar 2,304,440 feet board measure; hemlock 440,320; total 10,295,960.


INDIAN MEDICAL ATTENDANCE.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Upon what basis or principle are medical men who attend to the Indians paid, is it per capita, by salary or number of visits and attendance, and distance necessary travelled?

2.	Do such physicians furnish their own medicines, or are such furnished at the expense of the department?
3,	How many Indians are in the reserve at Bear river, Nova Scotia?
i.	Who is the medical officer attending the Indians on the reserve, when was he first appointed, upon whose recommendation, how is he paid, how much was he paid last year, and how much has he been paid since his first appointment ?
5.	How far does he have to travel from his home to visit the reserve, and how many visits did he make last year?
6.	Are all the Bear river reserve Indians located on Bear river reserve? If not, how many are located elsewhere and where?
7.	Do they have the services of another medical officer? If so, who is he, when was he first appointed, by whose recommendation, what was he paid last year, and how much has he been paid since he was first appointed?
8.	What other medical officers are employed by the government to attend Indians in Nova Scotia, what is the date of the appointment of each, the number of Indians under the professional care of each, the distance in each case from the home of the medical officer to the reserve and the salary or yearly allowance to each for such medical services?


Mr. OLIVER:: 
EXPORT OF PLOUGHS.
Mr. NEELY:: How many ploughs manufactured in Canada were exported to the United States in the years 1909 and 1910 respectively, and what was the value of these exports?
Mr. PATERSON;
The number and value of ploughs (Canadian produce) exported from Canada to the United States during the fiscal years ended March 31, 1909 and 1910 respectively was as follows:-


Mr. JAMESON.: No. Value.
1909	
213	$3,9361910	
389	40,539


WOOD ISLAND LIFE BOAT.
Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Has the Department of Marine and Fisheries recently installed a new motor life boat at Wood island, Bay of Fundy?
2.	If so, what are the dimensions and the description of the new boat, and of what material is the hull constructed?
3.	How many persons will she he able to accommodate ?

4.	How many compose her crew?
5.	Where was she constructed, and what was the total cost of the boat?
6.	What speed is she expected to develop, loaded, under moderate sea conditions?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Length, 26 feet; breadth, 7 feet; depth amidships, 2 feet 9 inches. Motor surf boat. Wood.
3.	About 20.
4 and 5. Government shipyard, Sorel, P.Q. $2,571.10.
6. Nine miles per hour.


SEED GRAIN INDEBTEDNESS.
Mr. SHARPE (Lisgar):: What amount is still owing by the farmers of the west for seed 'wheat, oafs, barley and flax supplied them by the government?


Mr. OLIVER.: On the 31st December, 1910, $195,444.49.


OSHAWA CUSTOMS COLLECTOR.
Mr. HUGHES:: 1.	Has Mr. G. F. Blarney, collector of customs at Oshawa, been retired? If so, why?
2.	Does the government consider a classical poet a suitable appointee to succeed Mr. Blarney?
3.	Who has been appointed?
4.	What salary had Mr. Blarney?
5.	What salary has the new appointee now, and is he promised an increase? If so, to what sum?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1. Mr. Blarney has been granted leave of absence for six months from December 1, 1910. He will be placed on the retired list at the expiration of such leave., Mr. Blarney is 77 years old, and is being retired on account of age.
2 and 3. Mr. L. 6. Smith is now employed as acting collector of customs at Oshawa, and is considered to be suitable for the position.
4.	$1,300 a year.
5.	Salary $1,300 a year now. The question of an increase in the salary has not been considered.


MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.
[Stage Direction]
For a return showing the full names of the permanent or temporary employees appointed at Montreal since the 1st of January, 1904, in the Post Office Department, the Customs, Inland Revenue and Public Works; the age and place of residence of these employees at the time of their appointments, the dates and nature of changes, promotions or increases of salary granted these employees since their appointment.-Mr. Gervais.
For a copy of all letters, telegrams and correspondence between the Department of the Interior or any of its officials and Mr. J. Krenzer, or their solicitor, or one Mr. Wolf, and of all reports of the officials of the said department respecting the south half section
28, township 27, range 18, west of the 2nd principal meridian, and also all correspondence, letters and telegrams between the department and one Thomas Greenway or his brother, respecting the said lands, and all corresponrence between the department and its officials respecting the said lands; and all papers, reports, correspondence and documents put in the files of the department since the 1st of April in relation to the dispute between said Krenzer and said Greenway.-Mr. Staples.

Mr. STANFIELD moved:: That it is expedient to provide that when flour or meal is sold or offered for sale by the bag, there shall be plainly stamped or marked on the bag the name of the manufacturer or packer and his address, and the weight of the contents and of the tare of the bag.
He said: Mr. Speaker, chapter 85, section 163, of the Revised Statutes provides that every barrel of flour or meal shall contain 196 pounds, and every half barrel 98 pounds, but there is no provision for selling flour or meal by the bag. In my own county, as [DOT] well as in other counties, I have heard complaints made that millers put up flour, and more particularly corn meal, in bags of different weights. They are supposed to put 98 pounds in a bag, but farmers have told me that when they weighed these bags they found as little as 91 pounds. The House can readily see that the consumer is losing considerable by this method. The amendment I propose to make in the Bill which I shall introduce, if this motion is adopted, is that every manufacturer or packer shall stamp plainly on the bag his name and address, and the weight contained in the bag. The reason that I did not think it would be wise to make a standard weight is that flour, particularly, is sold in half bags, quarter bags, and, I believe, in eighths, and it would be pretty hard to amend any statute so as to provide for conditions of that kind. If the House will allow a Bill for this purpose to be introduced, when it reaches the committee stage, wc will discuss the question more thoroughly.


Mr. FISHER.: I see no objection to this resolution, as I understand from the hon. member (Mr. Stanfield)) that it is introduced with the purpose of founding a Bill upon it, and, of course, we will have full opportunity of discussing the details of that Bill. I take it that the hon. member is proceeding in this way because it is a subject that has reference to trade and commerce, and consequently a Bill has to be founded upon a resolution. With that understanding, and leaving the House full opportunity to discuss the principles of the Bill, as well as its details when it comes before us, I see no objection to passing this resolution.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee thereon.
Mr. SPEOULE.: Would that apply to a great deal of the flour that is shipped in from Manitoba and elsewhere in (bags? Flour comes in by the carload in that way. Would it apply to all that, because it would make a very great difference to the manufacturer of flour?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend had better address his question to tire mover of the resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought that if this resolution were passed a Bill founded on it would come under the purview of some department of the government, and the minister at the head of that department would be the one, from whom we would expect to get information and advice. I do not know whether the hon. member (Mr. Stanfield) has considered that or not. But it would entail a considerable amount of work, in my judgment, if this Bill became law. While it is the usual practice that flour is sold, by the hundredweight in bags and there is an amount allowed for the -bag itself neither the weight nor name is marked on the bag. They sell the flour bag and all, and new bags are coming into use all the time, and I take it they would all have to 'be stamped. I do not know whether it applies to anything else except flour and oatmeal ; I suppose it would not apply to bran or shorts?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about corn and what they call cream of wheat which is sometimes sold by the hundredweight. I am not saying the principle is not right but if it applies to all these tilings it would cause a good deal more trouble to the miller.


John Stanfield: The object of this amendment is to protect the consumer and not the miller who is quite able to take care of himself.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This legislation is an amendment to the Inspection and Sales Act which comes under the Department of Trade and Commerce, and the details would have to be considered by that department. The general principle that everything sold must be what it is represented to be is a good one ; and is embodied in our present legislation. The practice of selling flour and meal in barrels has changed of late years so that it is now generally sold in sacks ; and I understand the hon. member (Mr. Stanfield) wishes to apply the rule to the sack, which is to-day the law in regard to the barrel. If it does not unduly interfere with the course of trade it might be well to extend this good principle in the manner proposed.


Mr FISHEE.: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is a great deal of flour sold in paper bags running from 20 to 100 pounds.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I do not know whether the hon. member (Mr. Stanfield) intends to apply it to paper bags or not.


John Stanfield: Bags of flour generally have the weight marked on them and the complaints made to me refer more particularly to cornmeal.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. MONK moved :: That the Select Committee of this House, named during its last session to investigate the different systems of proportional representation, adopted or suggested elsewhere, as an improvement upon our present methods of election, with power to extend said inquiry to all the various forms of the proportional representation laws proposed or in force, and with power to send for persons or papers and to employ a shorthand writer and to report from time to time, he reappointed, and that the said committee be composed as heretofore of the Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, Messrs. Burrell, Kyte, Magrath, Tureotte (Quebec), Wilson (Laval), and the mover.
He said : The object of this resolution is merely to reconstitute the committee on proportional representation which was appointed last year but bad not time to finish its labours before the end of the session. Some evidence was taken then but there are still witnesses to foe examined and important evidence to be adduced. The same members as last year will compose the committee.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. BOEDEN (Halifax) moved :: For a copy of all correspondence, memoranda, reports, memorials, plans, orders in council, treaties, conventions, agreements, documents and papers of every kind, touching any proposal or Bill to erect dams or other similar works across the Fiver St. Lawrence, or part of the said river, at or near the Long Sault, or in the vicinity thereof; including all statutes of the state of New York and of the United States of America relating thereto, and all Bills now before the congress of the United States of America touching the same, and all the proceedings upon all such statutes and Bills.
He said : It is reported in the press that the Bill to which this motion has relevance or some similar Bill has been defeated in the Senate of the United States, but I am not clear as to what the exact situation there is. However that may he, it is desirable that we should have all these papers before the House in order that the country may be in a position thoroughly to compre-

'hend the whole situation as it has developed in the United States if ever a similar proposal should be renewed there or in this parliament. I would not care to associate myself with the view which was presented in this House a few days ago. That if the United States did not decrease the level of the water in the River St. Lawrence we have no standing whatever to make a protest against the creation by any corporation formed in that country, of obstructions across the river. I rather regret that the Jdinister of Justice seemed to adopt that view. The channel which has [DOT]been alluded to is one which, under the terms of the Ashburton Treaty, must be free and open forever to the people of both countries. As I understand the argument which was made in this House on the occasion in question, it amounted to this, that if the level of the water is not raised beyond a certain height, the United States can do anything they like in that channel, provided they afford us another channel ; if they establish a private canal, and close the channel up altogether, they are at perfect liberty to do so, and we have absolutely no right, and no standing under international law or otherwise, to make any remonstrance whatever. I would not be inclined to regard the situation in that way. I would consider that we would have a right and a duty to protest if that channel were interfered with by a corporation or by the United States government. They could not possibly be the sole judges as to whether navigation was interfered with or not. They could not possibly arrogate to themselves the sole right to determine whether navigation had been interfered with by the substitution of another channel. Such a statement of the case appears to me an unreasonable one, and I am bound to say that it is not one that I would have expected the government of this country to make through the mouth of the Minister of Justice or through the mouth of any other member of the cabinet. However, that may be, I would think it desirable that the documents alluded to in this motion should be brought down and laid upon the table of the House.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: There is no objection whatever to the granting of the motion of my hon. friend. On the contrary, I rather welcome it, and the government will spare no effort to have as complete a record as can be made, so that we shall have before us in due form the exact situation, commencing with the Ashburton Treaty, so that we may ascertain, as far as we can, what our rights in the matter are, and how far they have been complicated or helped by subsequent legislation. Of course, the preparation of such a return will take some time. As to our rights under the Ashburton Treaty, I would
not care to express an opinion at this moment. The Minister of Justice, who is an eminent authority on questions of this kind, apart from his official position, has given his opinion. My hon. friend, who is also a high authority in his profession, has given another interpretation of the law; but, happily for us, whatever opinion we may entertain, I have reason to believe that the Bill which has been the cause of all this excitement, has met a reverse at one stage of the proceedings.


Mr. FOSTER.: What may be thrown out at one time by a branch of the United States legislature may pass at another time, so that a temporary relief should hardly be looked upon as a shelving of the whole question, and I can conceive of no stronger argument, on the part of the promoters of the same company, or of a similar company, before a committee or before Congress, than the statement which has been made by the Minister of Justice here. I am not a lawyer, and I do not like to interfere between two lawyers when they disagree; but, even as a matter of law, the Minister of Justice thought that he was absolutely correct. It seems to me that there was nothing to call forth that expression. If it happens not to be correct, and I hope it does not, and it does not seem to be common sense that it should be, we have put a little piece of machinery into the hands of those who are in favour of interfering with the rights of navigation beyond certain limits which we may find it very difficult to meet.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not admit that at all.


George Eulas Foster: It is not the policy of my right, hon. friend to admit anything.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is the policy of my hon. friend to suggest anything.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I rather imagine that that Bill was thrown out at Washington because of the discussion which took place here the other night and the strong pronouncement then made against the principle of allowing such corporations the rights which that Bill contemplated this corporation should have. When we were discussing the fact the other night, if 1 understood the gist of the argument, it was contended by some parties that because it was proposed to generate power on a branch of the river that was on the American side, and passing through American territory, neither the International Waterways Commission, nor this House, had any right to interfere. Provided that the level of the water was not raised in the main stream or any branch of it in which navigation was being carried on or

could be carried on. But there were many in this House who held that one branch of the St. Lawrence river was the same as another, and that if we put an obstruction across one branch, it was equivalent to putting an obstruction across the whole stream. I drew attention to this point in the Railway Committee in connection with a Bill giving power to erect a bridge across the Niagara river, which is a navigable stream. It was contended that Canadians did not navigate it, but that Americans did, and that because the plans of the bridge were submitted to the Minister of Public Works, that was sufficient to safeguard the rights of both countries. I contended that it was not, and I contend so still. Since we have an International Waterways Commission, in my opinion, before we pass any legislation affecting those rights, it should be brought to the attention of that commission, so that we may have their views upon it. In this case the approval of the committee was given to the proposed legislation notwithstanding the fact that the Niagara river is a navigable stream. I think that was wrong and out of harmony with the principle discussed here, and I believe generally accepted the other night. If we can get _ any additional information on this subject from the papers to be brought down, it is very desirable that the House should have it, because we cannot too soon have some international understanding as to the extent to which those rights can be interfered with under corporate powers given by this House or by legislative authority in the United States.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: The other evening I think the Prime Minister stated that he understood that the Bill which was then before Congress was intended to dam only a part of the Sault, that is the South Sault. Now, I have before me the Bill, which I see by the newspapers has been throwp out, and it is as follows:
S.	10558.


IN THE SENATE OP THE UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
January 30, 1911.
Mr. Oliver introduced the following Bill, which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce:-
[Stage Direction]
To provide for the improvement of navigation in the St. Lawrence river and for the construction of dams, locks, canals, and other appurtenant structures therein at and near Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheek islands.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the Long Sault Development Company, a corporation organized under a law of the state of New Mr. SPROULE.
York, entitled ' An Act to incorporate the Long Sault Development Company, and to authorize said company to construct and maintain dams, canals, power-houses, and locks at or near Long Sault island, for the purpose of improving the navigation of the Saint Lawrence river and developing power from the waters thereof, and to construct and maintain a bridge, and carry on the manufacture of commodities/ which became effective May twenty-third, nineteen hundred and seven, its successors and assigns, be, and they hereby are, authorized to construct, maintain, and operate for navigation, water-power, and other purposes for a period of ninety-nine years a dam or dams in so much of the Saint Lawrence river as lies south of the international boundary line between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada, near Long Sault, Barnhart, and Sheek islands, either independently or in connection with like works now erected or to be erected in so much of said river as lies north of said international boundary line, with a bridge or bridges and approaches thereto, and a lock or locks, a canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto; provided, that such dam or dams, lock or locks, canal or canals, and other structures appurtenant thereto, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, operated, modified, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Act entitled ' An Act to amend an Act entitled " An Act to regulate the construction of dams across navigable waters/ " approved June twenty-third, nineteen hundred and ten: provided further, that such bridge or bridges and approaches thereto, except as herein otherwise provided, shall be constructed, maintained, operated, modified, or removed in all respects subject to and in accordance with the provisions of the Act entitled ' An Act to regulate the construction of bridges over navigable waters/ approved March twenty-third, nineteen hundred and six: and provided further, that the Secretary of War shall cause a survey of that portion of the Saint Lawrence river to be affected by said improvements to be made with a view to securing a navigable channel, suitable for commerce up and down said river, from a point opposite the western end of Croil island to a point opposite the eastern end of Barnhart island, together with plans and specifications therefor, and all rights herein granted to the Long Sault Development Company shall be conditional on its improvement of said channel at its own expense, in accordance with said plans and specifications, said channel to be completed simultaneously with the other works herein authorized, all expenses connected with such survey and the preparation of such plans and specifications to be paid by the said company, its successors, or assigns.
Section 2. That said Long Sault Development Company, its successors and assigns, shall be subject to the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relative to the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, proclaimed by the President' of the United States on the thirteenth day of May, nineteen hundred and ten.
Section 3. That the actual construction of the works hereby authorized shall be com-
323"

rnenced within two years and shall be completed within fifteen years from the date of the passage of this Act; otherwise this Act shall be void, and the rights hereby conferred shall cease and be determined.
Section 4. That if said Long Sault Development Company, or any other company or companies acting with it in such development, shall develop power by the construction of works, a part of which shall be located north of the international boundary line, at least one-half of the power generated shall be delivered in the United States. Provided, that when in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the chief of engineers use cannot be found in the United States for the full share thus assigned to this country the surplus may be temporarily diverted to Canada, but shall be returned to the United States when in the opinion of said officers it is needed. Provided further, that nothing herein contained shall be construed to prevent the importation from (Canada of the whole or any part of the power generated from any of the said works in the St. Lawrence river.
Section 5. That should the works hereby authorized be or become at any time, in the opinion of the Secretary of War and the chief of engineers, inadequate to accommodate, or an interference with, the navigation of that portion of the St. Lawrence river affected thereby, said company, its successors or assigns, shall, under the supervision of the Secretary of War and the chief of engineers, make adequate provision for the accommodation of navigation; and should said company, its successors or assigns, fail so to do, the United States government shall, under the supervision of the Secretary of War and the chief of engineers, do anything required to make such provision for navigation, and the expense thereof shall constitute a debt of said company, its successors or assigns, and a lien upon all its property.
Section 6. That the Long Sault Development Company shall execute a bond obligatory on itself, its successors and assigns, with good and solvent sureties in the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, payable to the United States, for the use and benefit of the riparian and other landowners in and along the St. Lawrence river conditioned to pay all damages that may accrue to them, or any of them, by reason of overflow, ice jams and other causes produced by the erection or maintenance of said dam or dams, and the work of construction shall not commence until said bond is executed and approved by the Secretary of War and deposited in the War Department.
Section 7. That the right to alter, amend or repeal this Act is hereby expressly reserv-, ed, and the United States shall incur no liability because of the alteration, amendment or repeal thereof.
That is the Bill which is now before the Senate in Washington, and I understand the one that Congress has thrown out. There are one or two points in connection with it to which I would draw the attention of the Prime Minister. It refers to the treaty proclaimed by the President, May 13th, 1910. They make no reference whatever to the Ashburton Treaty. As I remember the International Waterways Commission Treaty was dated January 11th, 1910.
Wilfrid Laurier: It was put in
force by the President on May 11.


John Dowsley Reid: The Prime Minister will notice that this Bill gives them power to improve the navigation of the St. Lawrence river and to develop power from the waters thereof. It also says they are authorized to construct, maintain and operate for navigation, water-power and other purposes, &c. I mentioned to the Prime Minister last year that the intention of this same company was not only to develop power, that of course is the main thing they have in view, but as I had heard privately from those behind this Bill, to build a canal from the point where they are erecting this dam down to Lake Champlain. This place, Massena, is the last American point on the river, from there down, Canada has both sides of the river, and if they were allowed to let so much water run down and build a canal from Lake Champlain they would make that the foot of navigation for the Americans, bringing grain from Chicago and the west. The minister will remember that discussion, and I do not think any one in the House gave us the impression that there was any truth in that report. The other evening, I happened to be on the train, and, meeting the secretary of the International Waterways Commission, I asked him if any such thing had ever been brought out before their commission. He tola me that it had been, that plans_ and1 all were submitted to this International Waterways Commission, and that our side of the commission had reported against it, and that that report was in the Public Works Department. Should that be the case it is a very serious thing, I think, for our great St. Lawrence route; for, if they get that dam and _ get the canal through such as I mentioned last year, then grain coming from Chicago, Duluth, Port Arthur or any of the upper lake ports can be taken right down to Massena. I asked the secretary how long the canal was. I have forgotten the figures he gave me, but it is not by any means a long canal.


Wilfrid Laurier: From Oswego?


John Dowsley Reid: No.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not heard of any thing but Oswego.


John Dowsley Reid: I did not hear oi it until the other evening. The secretary gave me the name. The words * Lake Champlain ' form a part of it.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: Who is the secretary from whom the hon. gentleman got his information ?


John Dowsley Reid: I think his name is CotA

Mr. PUGSLEYi. No such report has come to my notice.


John Dowsley Reid: It may be that he is wrong.


Wilfrid Laurier: He is mistaken.


John Dowsley Reid: It may be so.


Mr. BRODEUR.: Can my hon. friend be referring to the canal which has been chartered between Montreal and St. Johns, which has the words ' Lake Champlain ' m its name P But it has no reference to the subject of this motion.


John Dowsley Reid: No. But this same company applied for a charter last year, and I believe, at the time, it was pioposed to give them power to dam the St. Lawrence river; but I heard at the time that their whole scheme vr&s to run a canal from where this dam would be, down to Lake Champlain, thus diverting the traffic that now goes to Montreal. If this were true, it would be a very serious thing, and if it were brought to the Prime Minister's attention, the obvious result of such a scheme would surely weigh with Sim to prevent it being carried out. I mention this to-day so that when the matter comes up again, these points may be considered, for these men are sure to come here again and want ;a charter, and, as the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster), has said, they are not going to stop with this year's results at Washington. I draw' to the attention of the Prime Minister the statements that have been made to me. I did not ask Mr. Cote to give me any private information; it was a public matter so far as I knew; I was simply discussing this question and asking what the commission had done. I certainly do not wish to reflect upon Mr. Cote.
As to this whole question, we on the St. Lawrence front, feel very strongly. It does not make any difference to me personally, because I am quite a distance from it; but we feel that the great St. Lawrence route should be kept as it is. The steamers stop at Prescott, which is the terminal point from Toronto. Passengers all change there, and it is the very fact of these rapids being there, that brings thousands and thousands of people down that river every year. To give the whole channel into the control of a private corporation, is something about which the people there feel very keenly. In fact, they feel that the Prime Minister will not agree to any such proposition. The damming of the South Sault, which the Prime Minister mentioned the other evening, is also very important. I have talked with engineers of repute on the subject, and they claim that if you raise the river the fifty feet or whatever mav be neces-Mr. REID (Grenville).
sary, it is going to throw the water round into the North Sault, and you cannot tell w'hat the effect may be. Has the Prime Minister ever seen the plan showing the exact location of the islands ? A glance at the map would show that if you dam the South Sault, the water must go by some other way. And we are not going to get any benefit from it. We cannot get the power, for the power is on the American side. The whole St. Lawrence at that particular point is on the American side. Even the North Sault, the rapids down which the Richelieu boats go, is on the American side. If we allow the river to be dammed at that point, we are simply under their control. At the time of the Ashburton Treaty, the parties who framed that treaty certainly went into the matter very carefully and protected our interests at that time. The only reason I can see that has been advanced either to this House or to the country why that charter should be granted is, that power is wanted at Cornwall, Morrisburg, Iroquois, Prescott, Brockville and Kingston. If you go east of the easternmost of these places, you have the Beauharnois canal, and all the powers developed about Lachine. So, I think they have plenty of power there for many years. So far as Cornwall is concerned, I understand that there is no great cry there for more power. I understand that in Cornwall there are some -who would like to see the dam go on for the local benefit that might arise in the way of more manufactures or something of that kind. But I do not think the town is suffering for want of power. As to Morris-burg, they are absolutely against this proposition. Even if there were a power line run in there, they could not use more than a few horse-power. The Hydro-Electric Commission is trying to arrange power for these places. In Prescott, in -which town I live, we are anxious to get power, there is no doubt about that. But to-day you could not sell 500 horse-power in Pres-cctt. While they are very anxious for power, yet they are down on this proposition to dam the St. Lawrence. Speaking from what I have heard, Brockville, -while anxious for power, is not willing to contract for more than 1,500 horse-power with the Hydro-Electric Commission. Kingston, I understand, wants several thousand horse-power. If we have a little patience, I believe that within the next year or two we shall have all the power we want in these places, and much sooner than we could get it by the project of damming the St. Lawrence. They tell me, and I think it is true, that they are developing some power here at Ottawa. The distance from Ottawa to Prescott is 52 miles. From Prescott to where this dam on the St. Lawrence would be built, is at least as far as

that. They are not any nearer to Prescott than we would be from Ottawa. This power will go all over the country. Then there is another power that is being developed; they are getting things in shape, and expect within twelve months, to have from 8,000 to 10,000 horse-power developed north of Kingston. They are trying to make arrangements with the Hydro-Electric Com-missiori to run a line to Kingston, and down to Brockville and Prescott. These powers we have in our own country, they have not been taken up before, and I am quite satisfied that if this matter is held back for two or three years, the towns from Prescott to Kingston will not have any trouble. Kingston is the largest place that wants power, I suppose Kingston might take from 6,000 to 8,000 horse-power. I believe that Kingston is to-day in a position to get that power delivered-the hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Harty), will correct me if I am wrong.


Wilfrid Laurier: Where from?


John Dowsley Reid: There is a company that runs a line from Trenton, they have 100,000 horse-power. Now, I will tell the Prime Minister why I make that statement. A short time ago representatives from Kingston, Gananoque, Brockville and Prescott, and I think the reeves, met a representative of the Hydro-Electric Commission, and the object, I understood, was to find out how much power each municipality would take so he could give them a rate. I saw these gentlemen when they were returning from Toronto; I met one of them with whom I am well acquainted the solicitor for this company, who was there in behalf of this company to oppose the Hydro-Electric scheme; and he told me that his company were prepared to furnish Kingston with all the power they wanted, provided Kingston would give them the absolute franchise, for $25 per horse-power. He gave me the impression that the Kingston people did not want to go into that scheme because they thought the power from the Hydro-Electric would be cheaper. If that is the position of things, it will work out all right in the end for Kingston. Now since these powers are close enough to be developed, and to be brought into these places, and will be brought in within the next year or two, I think we in this House need not pass 'any legislation of this kind. It may be that in twenty years from now the position of this country will be changed. But unless there is some strong reason why that Bill should be passed in this House other than those I have mentioned, I think this government and every member of this House should strongly oppose it, and leave our rights to that river just as they are at the present time. Therefore, I hope the Prime Minister will do everything he can to leave us exactly
in the same position we are. Perhaps he has already done it, I do not want to ask him to reveal any state secret, but I hope he has wired Ambassador Bryce to ask the President not to allow that Bill to go through at all, but that the rights we have under the Ashburton Treaty may be preserved to us intact. I am satisfied if the Premier does that, the Bill will never go through the American Congress, and I do not think these people would trouble this House again at any future time. The men who are promoting this scheme are very persistent. They were in my county, and they didn't hesitate to say that they had a million dollars, or two million dollars if necessary, with which to put this Bill through. They were up along the whole country, talking to the people, trying to raise an agitation, and to force the members from that region to put this Bill through. I think the means they took were as unfair as were ever resorted to by the promoters of any Bill.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: I am glad of the opportunity of saying a few words for the purpose of affirming the position I took when this question was discussed the other night in the House. I was then opposed both by the Minister of Public Works and by the head of the government. I was proceeding with an argument when I was interrupted, and was told that this power on the Long Sault had already been conveyed to a corporation. I began to argue that under the Ashburton Treaty the Crown had not the power of conveying that property without the consent of the legislature, and I was told by the Minister of Public Works and by the Prime Minister that the legislature had already consented to a conveyance. I was astounded at the time.


Wilfrid Laurier: I did not say that.


John Graham Haggart: The Minister of Public Works said it, and I thought the right hon. gentleman assented. I took the opportunity of looking up the case, and I found that no such power had been given to any company in the world for the use of the Long Sault canal. My position then was perfectly right. Under the Ashburton Treaty, navigation and what is essential to navigation, is reserved to the people of this country, and the Crown cannot convey it. What the Crown did convey in reference to that work near Sheik island, is the right of user to the surplus water, the discharge of the by-wash that is used for the purpose of keeping tihe level of Sheik island. There is a certain by-wash passing down there, a surplus of water. That water, so far as it did not interfere with navigation, was leased to an individual or to a corporation. The Act of parliament was simply an en-powering one, giving to the corporation the

right of doing what the individual, or the party to whom that property was conveyed, had the right of doing.
There is that further right because the parties who leased that particular property from the Crown had in mind the contingency that perhaps they might not have water enough. The original idea of building the canal there was to utilize what is called Hoople's creek. The idea was to deepen and dredge Hoople's creek so as to utilize it for the purposes of navigation instead of building an outside embankment. Under the contract with this corporation the government have given them the right to deepen that creek to any extent they like and the use of whatever water may be diverted from the St. Lawrence. That power is given to this corporation but it does not interfere at all with any of the rights which we have under the Ashburton Treaty. Every one knows that the particular part of the St. Lawrence between Sheik island and the north shore was utilized for the operation of a little mill owned by Mr. Snetsinger. That mill was expropriated when the canal was being built and taken over by the government. It was to a certain extent utilizing that power, or the power which has been developed by the erection of a dam. The ownership of that power rests with the people of Canada and the people of the United States, and it cannot be taken either by Crown - gift, or in any other way, unless with the consent of the legislature of this country. It is true that under the treaty we have given to the In ternational Commission the right of deciding what shall be done with these particular waterways, how they shall be utilized, and to what extent we have a right in them. My hon. friend who spoke before me referred to those powers as being situated in the United States, and he said that if the water was dammed the power would be of great benefit to the United States for the simple reason that the body was situated on the United States side. That question arose in connection with the power question at Niagara Falls. It came before the Waterways Commission, and I think they arrived at a perfectly proper -and right conclusion when they determined that no matter whether international waterways diverged in their course to the south or the north, or whether the large body of water was situated on one side or the -other a moiety of the power should belong to each country, and that each would have a common interest in it. So that, if any dam be erected on the south side for the purpose of utilizing that power, a moiety, or half, would belong to each country, and they would not be allowed to utilize it by the Waterways Commission in the first instance unless they had received the assent of this parliament and of the Congress of Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).
th(e United States. So, I think it is perfectly secure. The possibilities of the future are very vague and uncertain as to its ever being utilized as a power. The United States Senate has thrown out the Bill but it is quite true that it may -be introduced again. No power can be given to that company unless with the consent of this legislature and especially unless with the consent of the government and the consent of the Waterways Commission. I think the day is far distant when such a consent could be shown to be advisable. If we want power in this country, as my hon. friend says, there are hundreds of other places which can be utilized, the development of which will not interfere with the scenic grandeur such as that which characterizes the St. Lawrence. There are other places where power can be as cheaply developed and -at the same time without spoiling the natural beauty of the place. This is an heirloom that ought to be kept for the people of this country. With reference to navigation, this is one of the wonders of the trip down the St. Lawrence that annually attracts more passengers than anything else, and unless the gravest and most serious reasons are shown from an economic point of view that it is in the interests of the country that this dam should be erected, I think the unanimous opinion of the country from one end to the other will be that we should leave this place in its present state of nature.


Mr. R. SMITH (Stormont).: Mr. Speaker, I happen to represent the constituency in which it is proposed to construct these works. I have observed that in the discussions which have taken place in this House, and other places a very great deal of misapprehension often occurs as to the actual situation, and as to what is actually proposed to be done. In the first place, if I caught correctly the purport of the Bill which has -been introduced at Washington and which has been read by the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), the proposition there is to dam the whole St. Lawrence. If that is the proposition I do not think that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) would argue for a moment that that could be done at the instance of the United States authorities without consulting the parliament of Canada. As I understood the remarks of the Minister of Justice the other evening, he contended that it would not be impossible for the American government to give the necessary authority for the damming of the South Sault alone without consulting the government of this country. Now, in giving that opinion I observed that the Minister of Justice compared the South Sault with the channel of the river that had already been dammed by this government in the construction of the

Cornwall canal, and lie apparently drew the inference that 'because that had been done without consulting the American government the same rule should apply to damming the -South Sault under the authority of the American government. I do not know how familiar the Minister of Justice may be with the facts as they exist at that ipoint, but I certainly know that there is no comparison at all between the two streams. The channel of the river which was dammed by the Canadian government is an entirely different stream from the channel of the South Sault. The South Sault is a channel that has always been navigated by steamers on the down trip. It is navigated to-day by ships of our own country as well as by ships of the United States ; in fact, I think, although I will not be positive in the statement, that any host that navigates the big Sault on the Canadian side can navigate the small Sault on the American side of the river. So, the situation is entirely different with regard to the channel of the river that was dammed for the purpose of the Cornwall canal. That is a channel that has never been navigated by any class of vessels except by the flat bottomed scows which in early days, before any canal was built there at all, were towed along the banks of the river by horses. No steamer ever ran up or down that channel that has -been dammed by the Canadian government. I think that possibly that circumstance was not called to the attention of the Minister of Justice, and that if it had been he might have drawn a distinction between the damming of one channel and the damming of the other. There was a great deal of alarm on the American side of the river at the time the Canadian government proposed to dam that channel. I cannot remember that there was any official opposition, but I do know that there was a very strong agitation on the American side of the river, that the American government was appealed to, and I understand that in some way or other the American government took the necessary steps to investigate and satisfy themselves that no possible damage to navigation could occur from the blocking of the Canadian channel that was dammed for the purpose of the Cornwall canal. *


Samuel Hughes: At what point did this blocking occur that the hon. gentleman speaks of?


Robert Smith: I refer to the Sheik island dams which block one of the channels of the river on the Canadian side. That is a very small stream. It was navigated at one time by those flat-bottomed scows that were towed by horses but steamers never navigated that channel.


Mr. LENNOX.: At what time did this agitation take place? Is it of recent date?


Robert Smith: The agitation took place at the time it was proposed to construct the Sheik island dams. I do not know that it ever went to the extent of an official inquirv on behalf of the American government, to the authorities here, but the hon. gentleman from Lanark (Mr. Hag-gart) would know that, because, when-the dam was commenced, I think he was Minister of Railways and Canals. The hon. member for South Lanark has stated that the Act incorporating the St. Lawrence Power Company did not give authority to create any of these dams, and in that opinion I entirely concur. I do not think there ever was such a dam in contemplation then, and I do not think the wording of the Act in any way authorizes the damming of the St. Lawrence at that point. What was in contemplation was a different scheme altogether, and the dams that were referred to were the wing dams which were to be thrown out into the stream for the purpose of diverting the water. What I think is very clear is that there is no authority from the Canadian parliament whatever to create those dams that have for their object the complete damming of the St. Lawrence river. As I understand the Ashburton Treaty, we have the same rights of navigation on all these water s as the Americans themselves have, regardless of whether the channel happens to be in American or Canadian waters. A great many people talk of these channels being entirely in American waters, but as a matter of fact every vessel that navigates the Big Sault has first to go through entirely Canadian waters, and after it goes through the rapids it crosses into American waters. There is no such thing as navigating the Big Sault without being at one time in Canadian territory and at another time in American territory. In the Big Sault channel of the rapids themselves is entirely in Canadian territory.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman means that they are on the Canadian side or the open channel between Long Sault island and the Canadian shore?


Robert Smith: Yes. The channel at that point on the Big Sault i3 entirely in Canadian waters, and, of course, the South Sault is entirely in American waters from start to finish.


John Graham Haggart: There are no American waters, or - Canadian waters, under the Ashburton Treaty ; both countries have an equal right to navigate.


Robert Smith: I am referring to the boundary line


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman understands the situation, and I would ask him if it is not a fact that on account of the winding of the river there is a point

m the rapids where the whole of the channel is wholly in American territory?
Mr. SMITH (Stormont)'. Yes. After you pass through the rapids proper you cross at the head of Barnhart island, which is an American island, and from there down the channel is between Barnhart island and the American shore, entirely in American territory. There is a small channel called the Little River, which is not navigable even for canoes, and which goes between Barnhart island and the Canadian island called Sheik island. I think, therefore, it is quite clear that before any complete damming of the St. Lawrence river can be accomplished there must be authority given by the government of this country. The question has been raised as to whether that authority oan be given iby the Governor in Council without submitting it to parliament, or whether parliament has to be consulted, and that is a question I shall not deal with on this occasion. The Minister of Justice, as I understood him the other evening, confined his remarks to the damming of the South Sault alone. If what he set out on that occasion is good constitutional law, namely, that the Americans can-do that without consulting us at all, then it is rather an unfortunate positipn for us. If they can dam it without consulting us at all they probably will not be under the necessity of dividing the power with us. I hope the Minister of Justice is not right in that respect, because it is possible to develop very considerable power by the damming of the South Sault alone, and if we have the right in common with the Americans to the navigation of these waters we probably would have the right to say they could only dam them upon the terms of giving us one-half of the power. Representing as I do the constituency in which this development is supposed to take place, I am exceedingly anxious to know that if there is any development of any kind on either channel we should have one-half of that power available in my part of the country. I am in hopes that in view of the difference between that channel and the channel that was dammed by the Canadian government, to which I have alluded, the Minister of Justice will be able to form a different opinion from that which he expressed in the House the other evening. Now, it has been represented by the engineers that some 500,000 horse-power can be developed at that point by the damming of the whole channel, and they tell us that about 60,000 of that 500,000 can be developed in the South Sault and the remainder in the Big, or North Sault. I am not here to-day to say that I desire the Bill before the authorities at Washington to go through, or that I desire any scheme to go through, because, first and foremost, I want to know the terms. If, without injuring navigation, we Mr. REID (Grenville).
could develop 400,000, or 500,000 horsepower in the St. Lawrence river at that point and could secure one-half of that for Canada, and could secure at the same time the absolute control of that power for all time, so that Canadian consumers could have it upon proper terms, then I say I am in favour of any scheme of that kind. But I am not in favour of any scheme that will hand over to an American corporation all this power; to do what they like with it, to take it to the American side, or to control and monopolize it for all time. A scheme of that kind I would think it my duty to condemn. But if power can be developed upon the terms of securing one-half of it for the Canadian people for all time, so that there can be no monopoly, then I am in favour of such development. If 60,000 horse-power can be developed in the South Sault it follows that 440,000 horse-power can be developed on the North Sault. If we leave the South Sault out, and if there is development on the Big Sault, the South Sault will supply all the needs of navigation, just as they have it to-day; it will accommodate every vessel that navigates the Big Sault, and will leave an open channel to prevent all this flooding that some people are so much afraid of. In that way they could develop 440,000 horse-power without interrupting navigation at all, or closing the natural channel of the St. Lawrence.


Haughton Lennox: The hon. gentleman's remarks are very interesting and very instructive. Would ha specify from what point to what point the dam would be built?


Robert Smith: Just where the promoters suggest: across the Large Sault from the foot of Long Sault island to the head of Barnhart's. That would dam the Big Sault. Then if you dam from the foot of Barnhart's to the Canadian shore you have a dam across the whole northern channel, and you leave the southern channel, that is the South Sault, entirely open for navigation without obstructing the Richelieu boats, or any boats that would navigate that river. Then you would have an open channel which would absolutely prevent any such flooding as has been feared bv the people of Morrisburg and by the people in the county of Grenville. Now, that is a scheme which I would like to see carried out, provided it could be carried out on the terms I mention, that is<, that absolute security would be given that one-half of the power would be available for all time in Canada, with proper authority given to this government to enforce that, and proper regulation of the rates by our Railway Commission or some other competent authority. We would then have the opportunity of controlling for all time one-half of the water-power in case the pro-

moters refused to carry out that part of the bargain. In fact, I think the only permanent security we can have that one-half of the water-power developed would be available for Canadians would be that we would have the opportunity, without calling upon the owners, of tapping that channel ourselves and creating one-half of the water-power. If that power were vested in the government, there would be an absolute security that our right to one-half of the power would be conserved.


John Dowsley Reid: Suppose the power were developed, where is the present demand for power, and is it not a fact that there is a lot of power in the St. Lawrence within 30 or 40 miles of Cornwall?


Robert Smith: I will answer my hon. friend by citing the case of Messina, which, before the creation of its waterpower, was not any larger than the town my hon. friend represents, Prescott. There was not a single industry there. Some English capitalists started to construct a power canal right opposite Massena, and everybody wanted to know what they intended to do, as nobody within many miles of Massena wanted power. The company went on and built the canal, and today the very agitation which we hear so much about is due to the fact that 60,000 horse-power is not half eB.ough for the village of Massena.


John Dowsley Reid: Then the hon. gentleman is asking for this power in order that it will build up Cornwall?


Robert Smith: I do not know whether it would build up Cornwall any more that it would build up Prescott, because all that would be necessary to carry the power to Prescott would be to run two wires along the shore.


John Dowsley Reid: The power would be cheaper at Cornwall?


Robert Smith: There would be just the difference between transmitting it five or six miles to Cornwall and about 50 miles to Prescott. In fact, there would be power enough developed to supply every town in eastern Ontario, and at a price that no power which my hon. friend has in mind could compare with at all. The development of the whole of eastern Ontario depends on how cheaply the power could be had.


Samuel Hughes: Is the hon. gentleman in a position to state what the effect would be on the river above the Long Sault island? How far up would the dam affect the stream, and what would be the effect of it in the flooding season in the spring?


Robert Smith: As a matter of fact, we do not have a flood season in the spring along the St. Lawrence river. That
is one of its peculiarities. The difference in the height of Lake Ontario and Lake St. Francis varies only three or four feet from one season to another. The only season of flood on the St. Lawrence is in the middle of the winter, caused by the ice jamming for a time in the narrow channel of the river, and thus causing the water above it to rise.


Samuel Hughes: It occurs when the ice is breaking up.


Robert Smith: Not when the ice is breaking up. The ice jams occur usually in the month of February. The hon. gentleman asked me how high we proposed to raise the water. The stipulation that was made by the Department of Railways and Canals was that under no circumstances should the water be raised high enough to interfere with the Cornwall canal, which is supplied above the rapids. The hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton last year discussed the possibility of the water of the St. Lawrence rising so high as to cross to the Ottawa river.


Samuel Hughes: No, flowing into the Raisin above Lancaster.


Robert Smith: The absurdity of that will be readily understood when we remember that under the conditions imposed by the Department of Railways and Canals the level of the water in no case is to be as high as the level of the Cornwall canal. At all events, if the South Sault were not dammed, there could not be any danger of flooding at all, because it is an open channel of the river.


Samuel Hughes: There is now considerable water flowing down the present channel. If the South Sault is dammed, will there be certainty that the current in passing down between the Long Sault and the Canadian shore would deflect off towards the American shore between Barnhart island and the Long Sault, and thence between Barnhart's island and the American shore. Would there be left a sufficient stream between Barnhart island and the American shore for purposes of navigation? Would not the tendency be to send a large portion of that water down between Barnhart island and Sheik island and thus make it impossible to navigate between Barnhart island and the American shore ?


Robert Smith: The engineers state and the charts show that at present, there is 40 feet of water down that channel. It is not proposed to stop the flow of water down that channel. These are submerged dams and the head above will send a large supply of water over the head of the dams. It is not supposed to be a dam that will stop the river, it is a dam put at the foot of the rapids raising the

water a certain height and allowing it to flow as before.


Samuel Hughes: It would only raise the water to the head of Long Sault island.


Robert Smith: Yes, I think two feet lower than the head of the Cornwall canal. There is a possibility of generating an enormous amount of power at that point without even interrupting the running of vessels down the Long Sault rapids. I believe there is a possibility of devising a scheme by which that can be done, so as to ensure to Canada for all time her full share of one half that power, and so regulating it that there can be no monopoly and that the power will be available to all the people of eastern Ontario upon terms so advantageous as to induce the establishment of the largest kind of manufacturing industries in eastern Ontario.


Samuel Hughes: I understand part of the proposition is to dam the channel between Barnhart island and the American shore and drive the stream down between Barnhart island and Sheik island. I understood that was part of another proposition.


Robert Smith: That is slightly wrong, there is no proposition to dam between Barnhart island and the American shore.


Samuel Hughes: Between Barnhart island and Long Sault island. We must use the channel between Barnhart and Sheik island as a navigable channel. It is now the International channel, although there is very little, water in it.


Robert Smith: No.


Samuel Hughes: If the proposition is to dam between Sheik and Long Sault islands and between the foot of Long Sault and the mainland, where is the water to
go ?


Robert Smith: My hon. friend is wrong. My statement is that the present scheme, if carried out in its entirety, is to dam from the American shore to the foot of Long Sault from the foot of Long Sault to Barnhart and from the foot of Barnhart to the Canadian shore. That would be a complete dam of the whole St. Lawrence. If the company were to leave out the first of these links, you would leave one channel absolutely free and only lessen the amount of development by 60,000 horse-power.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. gentleman proposes to leave the American channel open all the way down ?


Robert Smith: That is what I would like to see.


Robert Smith: 


Samuel Hughes: Leave the American channel the navigable channel ?


Robert Smith: Exactly. My hon. friend may say that is objectionable, because it makes the channel an American channel, but my hon. friend will remember that at present the only channel we have is partly an American channel, one portion of it is American and the only change in that respect would be to make the American part of our channel a couple of miles longer than it is to-day, and of course that would be nothing one way or the other. I am afraid that my ideas are not the ideas that would meet with the approval of the promoters, because I am sure Jhat from the point of view of their own interest, they would desire first and foremost, to dam the South Sault because damming the South Sault would immensely improve the power they already have at Massena. They have had difficulty there. They cut quite a long canal across country from the head of the Long Sault rapids to the power plant at Massena, where they discharge into the Grass river, the Grass river again discharging into the St. Lawrence, some little distance below. By damming the South Sault, they would raise the water at the entrance of that canal, and they expect, I believe, to stop the difficulty in connection with ice jamming into the head of that canal. They expect to somewhat curb the flow of ice there. Thus they have the double object of developing another 60,000 horse-power in the South Sault, and also increasing the head and increasing the facilities for getting more power in the power-house they have already constructed.


Samuel Hughes: Is it the hon. gentleman's opinion that the Americans have authority and power to-day to dam from Long Sault island to the American shore ?


Robert Smith: No, I said I understood the Minister of Justice had said so. I am in hopes that the Minister of Justice is in error on that point. I do not intend to set my opinion up against that of the Minister of Justice.


Samuel Hughes: They would then have the same power to dam between Barnhart island and Long Sault island ?


Robert Smith: I must leave that question to be argued by the Minister of Justice. I am in hopes that the Minister of Justice, upon examining the difference between the stream which has been dammed by the Canadian government and the South Sault, which it is now proposed to dam, will find that a distinction can be drawn and that the Tule applicable to the stream dammed by the Canadian government would not necessarily be applicable to the South Sault. I am in hopes that on

a careful examination, the Minister of Justice will find that the difference between those two streams is a justification for arriving at a different conclusion from the one he announced the other night. If we have absolutely no right to prevent the damming of that stream we can get no power; if we have, we can make it a condition that from whatever development is made of the South Sault, Canada will have her share of power.


Haughton Lennox: I certainly think we are indebted to the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Smith), for the very lucid and interesting statement he has made with reference to this question, and I think we have also to congratulate the hoji. member upon the candour with which he dealt with the question. It is not at all pleasing to us upon this side of the House, upon any occasion to differ, as to a matter of law, with a gentleman so eminent in his profession as the hon. Minister of Justice, but it is made clear by the statement of the hon. member for Stormont, (Mr. Smith), that there is absolutely a necessity of placing ourselves upon record upon the important question of the _ relative rights of Canada and the United States in connection with the -St. Lawrence river. The hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Smith), has pointed out circumstances that I cannot say I noticed before, if I understood the hon. gentleman aright, namely that the Minister of Justice spoke of damming the whole St. Lawrence river.


Robert Smith: I understood the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Ayles-worth) to be referring only to the South Sault.


Haughton Lennox: 
Mr. ARMSTRONG.: And the member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee).


Haughton Lennox: The member for West Lambton was only a ' subsidiary company5 in this matter. Of course, he did his best, but without the active, energetic and powerful influence of the Minister of Public Works, aided by the night sessions we had last year, when we endeavoured to protect the rights of the people in this great international boundary water-


William Pugsley: In addition to the wilful misunderstanding as to the effect of the Bill.


Haughton Lennox: I do not know whether the minister is right in saying that he wilfully misunderstood the Bill or not.


William Pugsley: He was hot referring to himself.


Haughton Lennox: I would not have imputed that to the hon. gentleman. v I know he is wily, astute and smooth-yes, and as an hon. gentleman near me suggests, oily-hut we would not impute to him that he wilfully and intentionally misconstrued the effect and purport of the Bill. Now, we are indebted to our delivery for the present time, I regret to say, speaking from the national standpoint, not to any action of the government, but to the efforts of the opposition in this House,



and the circumstance that the American Congress, realizing the enormity of the proposition, has seen fit, for the present, to reject it. The hon. member for Cornwall also pointed out the circumstance that hon. members supporting the government, if not members of the government-yes, I remember now, even a member of the government-tried to becloud the facts. He pointed out that this little trickling stream north of Sheik island, and that has been closed for the purpose of improving conditions on the Canadian side, never was a navigable part of the St. Lawrence river in the true sense in which we speak of navigation. The hon. member for Cornwall points out that scows could, with difficulty, pass up and down this channel, but vessels never followed it; and so the inference plainly is that you cannot draw any parallel 'between the important national works we have executed many years ago upon the Canadian side and the gigantic scheme for purely corporate and personal ends which is proposed to be launched on the American and Canadian sides at the present time. The hon. member for Cornwall also pointed out what I am indebted to him for knowing-it may have been known to many other members of the House, but I did not appreciate the point before-if I understood him correctly, the rapids of the Long Sault are entirely in Canadian territory. Was I right in so understanding?


Robert Smith: Not exactly: but the rapids of the Big Sault. The South Sault is in American waters.


Haughton Lennox: I am not exactly familiar with these terms. The rapids of the Big Sault are entirely in Canadian territory, and every vessel, whether Canadian or American, passing down the river, must pass through the rapids of the Big Sault before it comes into the American part of the channel.


Robert Smith: Provided they select the Big Sault. They may select the South Sault.


Haughton Lennox: For the purposes of the greater needs of navigation, as I understand it, the Canadian part of the boundary waters must be used as well as the American part.


Robert Smith: If the hon. gentleman will allow me: I said I did not think there was much difference in the size of the vessels that can navigate one or the other. Practically the vessels that can navigate either can navigate the other. There might be a slight difference.


Haughton Lennox: Speaking candidly, I am indebted to my hon. friend for puting me right on these matters, with which I do Mr. LENNOX.
not profess to be familiar. It is not mere empty compliment for me to say that both by reason of his familiarity with the territory, and by reason of his facility of expression, the hon. gentleman has certainly added very much to the store of knowledge that we have upon this very important question. Now, the circumstance I have just pointed out is an additional reason why I propose to object to the line of argument taken by the Minister of Justice the other day, and in saying that we are-aside from conventions of recent date-practically at the mercy of the United States as to what should be done with the St. Lawrence river.
I listened with attention to the hon. gentleman who has just spoken, and who has evidently given this matter a good deal of consideration. His opinion is that it would probably be in the interest of both Canada and the United States that the scheme proposed at the present time should be carried out, but with this qualification, that he would leave open the channel which lies immediately alongside the American shore. He thinks it would be in the interest of Canada and of the United States to dam the St. Lawrence river from the Long Sault island across to Barnhart island, and then across to the Canadian shore. True, the hon. gentleman qualified his opinion by, saying that such a scheme should be subject always to the paramount consideration of navigation; in other words, that provided we can still effectually navigate the river, both Canada and the United States would be benefited by the development of the enormous amount of power, some 460,000 horse-power, to be equally divided between the two countries. With that part of his argument I cannot agree. I am entirely opposed to damming the St. Lawrence river by any private or corporate scheme. I believe that, having regard to the great gift of providence in the possession of the St. Lawrence river, in view of the increasing interest and benefit it will be to the people of Canada as a navigable water, having regard to the fact which is being emphasized all the time that water navigation is beyond all comparison cheaper for bulky commodities than is transportation by rail, we never should consent, to the damming of that great river. Although we have for the moment escaped the assaults of this enormous company which stands behind the Long Sault Development Company, with its capital of $50,000,000, buttressed, fortified and encouraged by certain patriotic gentlemen on the Canadian side, endorsed as it is by the Minister of Public Works-although we have for the moment escaped from these people, it is unfortunate indeed that the Minister of Justice threw out the remarks he did the other night, telling the people

of the United States for all time to come, by the voice of the Canadian Minister of Justice, that we are practically without remedy as regards the broadest and most important feature of this international question. The Minister of Justice started out by telling us that this was a matter of international law. That is all right. But he followed that by asking:	What is international law? And he replied that international law was an indeterminate thing something that it is almost impossible to find out; ill other words, that no one can say what international law is. Well, Sir, that is a new doctrine. It is true, as the Minister of Justice said, that international law is not contained in any statute, and it is equally true that many questions of international law may arise upon which there has been no decision, matters of new import may arise in reference to boundary waters which have to be construed and determined by analogy and upon principle. But to tell us in effect, as he did, that we are practically at sea as regards anything to guide us in this matter, I venture to say will be found upon investigation not to be correct. I venture to suggest to the Minister of Justice, that since many rivers are international boundaries in Europe and other countries, the question of what are the rights of the parties on each side of the river, is not a new question by any means, although it is new in this particular phase. ^A large and important volume of international law, and of views and decisions on similar questions, have been recognized by nations and will be found applicable to the question here under discussion. Be that as it may, whether the law laid down by the Minister of Justice is correct or not, I regret, speaking from a national point of view, that the Minister of Justice has declared to the people of the United States, as a rule which they will invoke in future, that we are practically at their mercy in reference to this matter. He says that aside from convention we are practically helpless, that the only remedy for us is expostulation, that as suppliants only can we endeavour to prevent _ whatever the United States may determine to do in reference to this matter. Well, I do not think so. If I say it outspokenly, I say it all the same with due deference to the great legal learning of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. But I venture still to say that we are not in the hands of the United States in that regard. The law of nations is as strong in support of justice now as it ever was. It has been many years since when a small community could not rely upon securing their rights at the hands of a larger community, if they could show that their cause was just.
Now the Minister of Justice proceeded to point out, by inference if not in words, that by reason of the fact that we had 103J
dammed the channel upon the north side of Sheik island, we w^ere powerless, even as a matter of justice and fair-play, to1 protest against the damming of the waters south of the international boundary. I deny that proposition altogether. Why, what the Minister of Justice subsequently read put that question at rest. It showed that by the recent treaty, provision was made as to the future, that, although all cases that had already occurred were closed, as to the future neither party could interfere with the height of the water upon either side, recognizing by the treaty to which the Minister of Justice referred, that we were conceded, if we did not originally have it, the right to have matters remain in statu quo, and that, as far as our damming of that little trickling stream at Sheik island was concerned, it had nc bearing at all upon the question of the damming of those navigable channels which the development company seeks power to dam at this time. The Minister! of Justice, in an elaborate and very carefully worded argument, referred to Article III. of the new Waterways Treaty, for the purpose of emphasizing and fortifying his position that we are absolutely at the mercy of the United States, except in so far as the matter can be regulated by section 3 of the Waterways Commission and that section 3 only applied to the question of the height of the water. The Minister of Justice sent forth to the United States- and it will be of record there for all time to come in their archives and will be invoked, as I would remind the right hon. gentleman who leads the House, against us either in reference to this river or other-rivers when we come to anpeal to the provisions of the Ashburton Treaty-the solemn declaration that we have practically no control over this great international waterway except such as is provided for by section 3 of the Waterways Treaty-a statement, as an hon. gentleman reminds me, that it is in the interests of the United States people, and not only that, Sir, but a statement that it was absolutely unnecessary to make, and which has almost the force and effect of a statute when you come to negociate with a foreign nation upon a matter of this kind in the future, By the _ sturdy opposition put up by His Majesty's loyal opposition we succeeded, first, in repelling the efforts of the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) last year in support of this measure, which was absolutely against the interests of the people of Canada, and although we may have, by our timely note of warning the other day, done something to prevent this measure from being passed by the United States Senate, yet the evil remains, and in all future discussions between Canada and the United States in

settling these boundary waterway questions, we, on this side of the House, when we are on the right of the Speaker, as well, as hon. gentlemen who are now carrying on the affairs of the country, will be con-, fronted by the utterance of the Minister of Justice made upon that occasion. _ Let me read just a line from what the Minister of Justice said:
The provision of article three of the new Waterways Treaty is to the effect that in addition to existing obstructions, no further obstructions, whether temporary or permanent, of boundary waters on either side of the line -and the whole river is a boundary water from main shore to main shore-no new obstruction on either side affecting the natural level or flow of the boundary waters on the other side of the line shall be made except by the authority of the United States or the Dominion of Canada, within their respective jurisdictions and with the approval of the International Joint Commission.
I wish to point out here that the wording of this section is that no new obstruction shall be made. The minister proceeds to say:
Now the wording of that exception plainly implies that each country, within its own jurisdiction, has the right to authorize obstructions in waters such as these.
That is the conclusion that the Minister of Justice laid down the other day, that is the statement that he sent forth to the United States. He says:
Now, the wording of that exception plainly implies that each country, within its own jurisdiction has the right to authorize obstructions in waters such as these. No new obstructions, it says, shall be made affecting the natural level on the other side of the line except by the authority of the United States or the Dominion within their respective jurisdictions.
So the argument of the Minister of Justice, as you will remember, Mr. Speaker, and as it has gone on record, was that we; are practically at the mercy of the United States except as to whatever relief we can get out of the third section of the treaty referred to, and that section is confined solely and exclusively to the question of the height of the water. That, J venture to say wdth great deference, is not the law. I pointed out then to the Minister of Jus-i tice the provisions of section 7 of the Ashburton Treaty, and it is only fair to say that upon that being called to his attention, the minister, in a very faint way, it is true, suggested there might be some possible relief there. The hon. gentleman asked me to read the provision of the Ashburton Treaty, and I read it now as I read it the other day.


Haughton Lennox: Does my hon. friend think that that provision which deals with the question of the height of water only, super-Mr. LENNOX.
sedes article seven of the Ashburton treaty? Does that provision, just read, supersede article seven of the Ashburton treaty ? It does not seem to me that they refer to exactly the same thing.


Mr. GRAHAM.: What is article 7?


Haughton Lennox: The article my hon. friend has read, which provides that the channels of the St. Lawrence shall be equally free and open to the ships, boats and vessels of both parties.
I put in the words ' and open ' because they appear in the Ashburton Treaty, but they were omitted from ' Hansard.' I am glad that my hon. friend from Stormont (Mr. Smith) very concisely, and in a manner which I could not hope to emulate, but of which I entirely approve, has called the attention of the Minister of Justice to the very important statement he made upon that occasion. I feel that, coming from the hon. member from Stormont (Mr. Smith), it will have, perhaps, more effect than if the criticism came from me. I sincerely trust that in order to mitigate as far as may be the difficulties that have arisen from the statements of the Minister of Justice, that, if he thinks the circumstances such as pointed out by the hon. member from Stormont (Mr. Smith) justify it, the minister will take an early opportunity of correcting what I venture to think is an erroneous impression as to the relative rights of the United States and Canada.


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice).: I think there is no practical utility in discussing at the present time the general merits or demerits of damming the St. Lawrence river at the Long Sault. There is no proposition, at any rate at present, before us, or any tribunal so far as I am aware of for the building of a dam in Canadian waters, or upon the Canadian side of the boundary. The only room at present which existed at all for discussing this scheme was in reference to the proposal to dam the south channel at a place which was solely within United States territory. If the morning newspapers are correct, that proposition has been defeated in the United States House of Representatives, and is at an end for the present at all events. But with regard to that proposal, in the discussion which took place in this House on Thursday last, I expressed the opinion which I entertained as to the legal rights of Canada to interfere, or to take exception to what was proposed. I vfas speaking altogether, of course speaking altogether, of the proposal to build a dam wholly upon United States soil and upon that side of the boundary, and speaking of that proposal without any reference to the continuation of that dam by the building of additional or subsidiary structures at some future time upon Canadian soil, I was looking at the matter as though it were an independent proposition to dam this southernmost chan-

nel of the St. Lawrence upon United States territory alone. Looking at it from that point of view from the standpoint of international rights, the position which I took was that in the absence of a treaty-supposing there was no treaty affecting the matter at all- there would be no ground upon which we could in any way interfere. Bat that is a purely academic situation. There are treaties, and, therefore, it was of interest to consider what our situation would have been had there been no treaties only with a view to showing what the foundation might be of any rights which we possessed. Taking the treaties as they stand-both the Ashburton Treaty and the treaty of last year with regard to international waterways- they make our rights in this matter, it seems to me, reasonably clear. I was somewhat astonished in looking over the ' Hansard ' report of the debate which took place on this subject last Thursday to see the impression which my hon. friend from St. Anne (Mr. Doherty) had derived from what I said, and I am afraid from what I have been able to gather of what has been said to-day, that my good friend from Stormont (Mr. Smith) has not comprehended as I would have wished him to have comprehended what I then said. I certainly meant to make it as distinct as words could be that the rights of navigation were supreme, and that if this proposal interfered with navigation there was an end of the matter. We then have undoubted right to object, and in everything which I said on Thursday last I was basing my remarks upon the supposition that the promoters were able to do what they wished to do without affecting navigation in any injurious way. I think I was clear upon that. At column 2969 of ' Hansard,' after discussing the question whether or not the level on the Canadian side would necessarily be raised by this work, and after stating that assuming the level on the Canadian side was not raised when the interests of navigation are the only things to be considered,
I said:
That is exactly the situation under the existing treaties. The right of navigation is paramount and that right is secured. That right exists in this United States channel which it is proposed to dam, just as it exists in the old channel between Sheik's island and the mainland of Ontario which is to-day utilized as part of our Cornwall canal. The right of navigation is secured by treaty and is not proposed to be interfered with. On the contrary, it is proposed to be helped according to the plans of the promoters, and unless the right of navigation is interfered with, or the level altered on our own side, we have, under existing treaties, no cause to object.
Now, with regard to the paramount right of navigation, the language of the Ashburton Treaty as given to the House in the debate to which I refer by the hon. gentleman from North
Simcoe, secures to us an equal right with the right of the United States. Some gentlemen who participated in the debate last week seemed to entertain the view that the terms of the Ashburton Treaty precluded the placing of any obstruction in navigable waters, and secured forever the free and open navigation of the whole of the waters of the St. Lawrence from main shore to main shore. I do not think that is the language of the treaty. The language is, speaking compendiously, that the channel from main shore to main shore shall be equally free and open to the ships, vessels and boats of both parties. It might be paraphrased in this way: shall be as free and open to the ships, vessels and boats of one party as to those of the other party. So long as the equal right to the navigation of the channels on either side is afforded by the country in which those channels are, to the boats, vessels and ships of the other country, I see no infraction of the terms of the Ashburton Treaty. We did not consider, when we shut of the channel between Sheik's island and the county of Stormont, that we were encroaching upon the prohibition of the Ashburton Treaty. We turned that channel into a canal. We left it, as we found it, as free and open to the navigation of the United States vessels as it was to the navigation of Canadian vessels. It might have been argued that we were obstructing the navigation. True, we did build an embankment across the entrance to it, and in that sense we prevented any one coming from the main channel of the Long Sault with his boat into the Canadian channel to the north of Sheik's island.


John Graham Haggart: Had we not a canal to the north of Sheik's island before the Ashburton Treaty?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: Our canal was on the mainland to the north of the channel which in a state of nature lay between Sheik's island and the mainland. Our canal opposite Sheik's island was. cut out of the mainland.


John Graham Haggart: Had we not a canal before the Ashburton Treaty?


Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think very likely. What I am pointing out is that long after the Ashburton Treaty we, for our own purposes, obstructed the upper entrance into the natural channel which lay between Sheik's island and the mainland, and, by a dam which we built from Sheik's island to the mainland, prevented any vessel coming into that natural channel from the main stream.


Samuel Hughes: Was that act in contravention of any treaty between Canada and the United States?


u259 COMMONS
Allen Bristol Aylesworth: I think not.
I think we had a perfect right to do it, because after it was done we left the navigation of that channel as free and open to the United States as it was to us; and, on exactly the same principle, so long as the United States leaves its southernmost channel as free and open to us as it is to them,
I cannot see how the terms of the Ashburton Treaty are interfered with. We have, however, not only the Ashburton Treaty, but we have the recent Waterways Convention, under which this very stream, from main shore to main shore, is to be forever free and open and common to the ships of both nations for the purposes of navigation. Navigation is made the paramount consideration under the Waterways Treaty. The new International Commission is told by that agreement between the two nations that its first consideration, apart from the use of water for domestic or sanitary purposes, is to be the use of it for purposes of navigation. The use of it for purposes of manufacturing power is an after consideration altogether. Now, by that recent treaty we have additional rights. We have not only our former right in regard to navigation maintained and confirmed, but we have the additional engagement on the part of the United States that although their government or Congress may authorize such an obstruction as that which is proposed, that obstruction cannot be allowed to be built in the river if the effect of it will ibe to alter the level on our side, unless the assent of the International Commission is first obtained. That is an additional protection and safeguard, and, in what I said on Thursday last, I was not for a moment losing sight of the paramount interests of navigation. On the contrary, I thought I was putting them in the forefront in saying what I did, speaking throughout on the assumption that the interests of navigation would not be in the least degree impaired by this proposed work. With regard to the sharing between the two countries of power, if power is to be created at this place, this is not a matter which is dealt with by any existing convention between the two nations as far as I am aware. It is a matter for subsequent negotiations and if possible agreement; and if it ever becomes a question of building a dam on Canadian territory to supplement or improve the dam which has been suggested to be built on United States territory, there will certainly be the very best opportunity on our part to make terms and conditions. But until there is a practical proposition of that character before this House for consideration, it seems to me that the discussion of the matter is entirely of an academic or theoretical nature.


Mr. C. J. DOHERTY (Montreal, St. Anne).: Mr. Speaker, I need not say that Mr. HUGHES.
I very much regret if I misapprehended the effect which the hon. Minister of Justice intended to convey in his observations of the other day, when I understood him to lay down the absolute proposition that we were not entitled to complain of the obstruction of these channels, though he did make a proviso to the effect that that was so, srt long as the navigation was not interfered with; and I think that I acknowledged that. But it seejns to me that we on this side were not mistaken in taking it that the hon. Minister of Justice laid down the proposition that, in the existing circumstances of this matter pending before the American Congress, where authority was sought on the part of a private company to dam the channels on both sides of the Long Sauls island, we have no ground, whatever, L, intervene or even to expostulate. I understand the hon. Minister of Justice to-day to contend that in his observations of the other day he did not go so far as to say that if there was danger that there was a question of obstruction of navigation, we had absolutely no ground to stand on. He says at page 2971:
In the circumstances which exist, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be difficult fqr us to frame any line of diplomatic objection or remonstrance which would have any effective foundation. It conld at once be answered by the United States that, under the terms or our treaty, we have the right to consider the advisability of doing this, and yon are perfectly protected by the creative of tins International Joint Commission upon which you are equally represented.
So'I think we were at least excusable foi understanding that the Minister of J us-tice, with all the circumstances just as they stand before him, had committed himself to the proposition that we had absolutely no ground upon which we could stand to intervene to claim protection for any right of ours in connection with the proposed barring of these two channels. That seemed to me at the time, and I must confess it still seems to me, a rather extraordinary position 'to take on the part of the government that is charged with the protection of the interests of this country. Here was a proposition to bar or dam these channels. It is quite true, if I understood properly the reading of the Bill today, that the company that asked for this right to dam these channels, did say that they were going to make some other provision whereby, notwithstanding their damming the channel, a means would be afforded for navigating one of those channels; but surely Canada was interested, and is interested in that measure or would be still interested if that measure were still being proposed, and I think it is not going too far to say. we should be consulted as to whether this method which this company was saying it was going to pro-

vide in lieu of leaving us facilities for navigation, such as they would have been if the channels were left free and open, was, or was not sufficient to effect the purpose. That was a matter of very vital importance to Canada. I do not think it is necessary to go so far as to interpret the terms of the Ashburton Treaty as meaning that these two channels must remain absolutely in the condition in which they were at the time the treaty was made. I quite recognize that there .might be some interference with those channels which would not affect their availability for purposes of navigation, and I would not be interested to contend on behalf of Canada that, assuming that what was going to be done, was going to leave those channels available for navigation, we would need to resist what was going to be done. But that is one thing, and it is another thing to say that when it is proposed to dam these channels, to take away from us the right given us under the terms of the treaty (and that is justified by the suggestion that something else is going* to be provided, that would be just as good) that we have no interest in that proposition, that we have no locus standi before the body that was called upon to give those powers, that we have no right and no interest to be heard before that body before it decides upon the essential question of whether this damming of the channels, which prima facie, is an interference with navigation, is, or is not, in view of the particular remedies which this company says it .proposes to give, going to produce an interference with navigation and an interference with our rights. While I still fail to see in the statement of the Minister of Justice to-day any withdrawal of that utterance, I do not think that our right to bo heard upon this matter, to look into this matter, to point out, if we so ascertained that the proposition did involve an interference with navigation, is at all diminished or affected by what the Minister has just said. It might be that, upon our being heard, we might satisfy ourselves that there was no interference with navigation. That might happen, but assuredly, it was a matter in which we had a vital interest and in which I would think the government would have felt it incumbent upon them to see that those interests were protected and that we were heard before this matter was disposed of in the manner proposed.
In so far as the Minister of Justice bases the proposition that we have nothing to say with regard to obstructions to be made ir these two southern channels on the ground that they are entirely upon American territory, and upon the fact that we constructed a canal which obstructed the channel between Sheik island and the
mainland, it seems to be only necessary to point out that the provision of the Ashburton Treaty said absolutely nothing about the channel between Sheik island and the mainland to make it quite clear that what we did to that channel can afford no ground for arguing a similar right on the part of the United States to do the same thing in the other channels. Because it is a remarkable fact (presumably attributable to the reason suggested by the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Haggart) that the Cornwall canal existed before the Ashburton Treaty), that the Ashburton Treaty makes no reference whatever to that channel between Sheik island and the mainland. It is not a treaty for the purpose of establishing equal rights for both parties in the waters of both parties; it is a specific provision to secure to Canada equal rights of navigation with the United States in channels which are in the United States. It is not at all a mere reciprocal arrangement that the river shall be, from side to side, equally free to the navigation of both parties, it is a provision for Canada that the .specified channels in the St. Lawrence on both sides of the Long Sault island and of Barnhart island shall be equally free and open to navigation. So that what we did on the channel between Sheik island and the mainland could have no possible bearing on what the United States had the right to do on the two channels with regard to which they had bound themselves that they should remain equally free and open to navigation to the vessels of our country and of theirs. There is absolutely no parity in the situation. It might be iso if we were governed solely by the recent Boundary Waters Commission Treaty.
As regards the argument that the words ' equally free and open,' do not give us a right to have these channels remain absolutely open just as they were, as I said a moment ago, I do not think it is necessary for the purpose of supporting the rights of Canada to go so far as to contend that the words mean that the two channels are to remain just as they were with no obstruction in any portion of them. On the other hand, do I understand the Minister of Justice seriously to contend that provided these channels are equally closed to both countries, this treaty has not been violated? Has the United States, which has agreed with us that these channels should be equally open to the navigation of the vessels belonging to citizens of both countries, a right to say to us: Well, if we do dam the channels they are just as open to you as to us. But they are not open to anybody at all. I hardly think that such an interpretation -would be seriously contended for. I quite understand that it may be consistent with what is stipulated there that some modification, or

obstruction if you will, in some portion of these channels might exist, and that we would be without ground of complaint, provided always that they remained open to navigation, and just as open to us as to the citizens of the United States. I must confess, though we have sometimes heard some criticism of the contentions which our American friends make upon diplomatic questions, I do not believe, so far as my knowledge goes, that they have ever resorted to what would seem to me to be such a manifest quibble as that, and I would be sorry to attribute to them the capability of seeking to encroach upon our clear rights by resorting to such an argument as that.
To sum it all up, this seems, to me to be the clear situation. We are precisely with regard to the United States, and with regard to these channels, in the position of a man whose neighbour has undertaken with him that two roads running over the neighbour's property should be for all time as free and open to the party in whose favour the obligation was contracted as to the party who owned the land; and in that situation the neighbour who has consented to these roads running over his own land, proceeds to build barricades across them, and he couples that action with the statement: Well, I am making a gate there, and I will pass you around by some backway, you will get out of this in some way or other, and I will be just as much impeded by this as you will be. The man who has this right of passing under that state of affairs, sits back and says:	Well, I have nothing to
say, that is no affair of mine, I have no ground to stand upon. That individual in that position would consider he had no rights, no possible ground even of remonstrance or of expostulation, and that it was for him to sit there with his eyes blind to what was going on, trusting simply that when it was all done some sort of a passage would be given him. Now if we carry that out, if we were dealing with an individual, I am very much afraid that when the individual came later to complain, it would be said to him: You sat by and you saw all this done, and you made no complaint. True, you had a right, but you have acquiesced in all this, you have absolutely allowed the proprietor of these roads to go to great expense in making these obstructions, but you never said a word, you are too late now to complain. It seems to me that is precisely the position that is created by this government for Canada in connection with this matter. Now is the time, when these things are proposed, now is the time for us to come forward with the affirmation of our right to be consulted with regard to what is going to be done affecting navigation. When we are face to face with a prima facie obstruction affecting navigation, it is for us to insist that we have an opportunity of satisfying our-' Mr. DOHERTY.
selves that navigation is not going to be interfered with. Fortunately for us the Congress of the United States appears to have been more careful of our interests, at all events, their action would indicate a greater carefulness for our interests than seems to have existed in the minds of the government.
What seems to me is the key of this whole thing is the fact that we are not dealing with any mere general disposition giving equal rights in these boundary waters to both countries; but we are dealing with specific legislation to create a right affecting navigation in waters almost exclusively if not exclusively within the territory of the United States. Of course, I do not argue that if the United States proceeds absolutely to obstruct these channels, if they say they won't abide by the treaty, that we have any very effective method of securing our rights short of the last resort. But I do not think we should assume as towards these people that they have any deliberate desire to violate our rights in the matter, that they are not willing to hear us when we have such a manifest interest in this matter, and that they are not prepared to respect our rights if we put them properly before them. To do so would not only be most offensive to them, but if that is our frame of mind on the subject, why, it is a matter for surprise that we should so recently have made another treaty with them; because if we assume that they will be untrue to their obligations under the Ashburton Treaty, what reason have we to believe they will be true to their obligations under the recent Waterways Treaty? There is another thing I want to add. I think the argument of the Minister of Justice to the effect that our right under the Boundaries Treaty to have the commission pass upon the question of obstructions to be created in the future, is limited to cases where those obstructions affect the level of the water upon our side, is an additional argument showing the urgency of our intervening in this particular matter before the thing is carried out at all. Of course, I am not in a position to say whether what is proposed will or will not affect the level of the waters on our side of the St. Lawrence; but, if they do, . apparently we would have some right to have the matter submitted to the Boundary Commission. But if it merely interferes with navigation, then, as I read the recent treaty, and as I understand the Minister of Justice to read it, we will have no right to say that this matter must be submitted to the Boundary Waters Commission, because the section is perfectly clear that the consent of the Boundary Waters Commission is required only in cases where obstruction in the boundary water affects the level on the other side. That, as I understand it, is the argument of the Minister

of Justice as to the effect of section 3, and it seems to be only an additional argument making it clear that now, before this thing is carried out, is the time for Canada to make her voice heard.


Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).: As to the legal phase of this subject, I do not wish to say a word, simply because I do not consider myself icompetent to deal with it after it *has been dealt with by the two able legal gentlemen who have just spoken. I would like to say a word or two on the practical side of the question. I am sure it is a matter of considerable satisfaction to everybody in Canada who is opposed to the damming of the St. Lawrence under any circumstances that the United States Congress has thrown out the Bill. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for South Sim-coe (Mr. Lennox) that this company will come forward again and endeavour to get authority both from the United States and from Canada to dam the St. Lawrence river. One reason why I am opposed to this damming of the St. Lawrence is that we could not now, or within the next five years, use our half of the power that would be generated. There is no question but that 500,000 horse-power could be generated there; in fact, some engineers put it as high as 800,000 horse-power. But, taking the smaller figure, if you had that power generated to-day you could not dispose of it in Canada at points near enough to the Long Sault for it to be used advantageously. A large amount of power is used in the city of Montreal. That power can be secured at points as close or closer than the Long Sault in streams not of an international character, and in places where it can be developed for far less money per horse-power than at the Long Sault.


Samuel Hughes: And the hon. gentleman (Mr. Turriff) is right-the St. Lawrence is not international below Cornwall.


John Gillanders Turriff: No, but it is

at that particular point. As I have said, you could not use in Canada our share of the power when generated. How, then, could you prevent it being sent to New York? It could be sold in New York at a high price, and that is where it would go ; and once it went there, we' would never get it back for use in. Canada. We have had our experience at Niagara, we have had our experience at Fort Frances ; why should we take any chances? I venture the assertion that, if that power is left alone, and if, latqr, the people of Canada decide that it is valuable enough to justify the injury to navigation, in fifty years from this time, the power of the Long Sault would be worth the amount of Canada's national debt to-day. If that be the case, why should we part with our right to any company, whether Canadian or
American?-but this company is practically altogether an American company.
Now, among the greatest objections raised to this scheme are those raised on behalf of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company. I have it on what I consider the most absolute authority that this Aluminum Company of New York, who have been hoping to get the right to dam the St. Lawrence, have been and are-if the action of Congress in throwing out the Bill has not put an end to it-buying-up the stock of the Richelieu and Ontario Navigation Company in order to silence the objections that have been raised on behalf of that company. But I consider that this should not have any effect. What I would like to see would be something even more definite than the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has given the House, although I think that what he has said must be fairly satisfactory-that is that nothing will be done in the way of approving of the plans for the damming of the St. Lawrence without fully consulting the House of Commons Urst. That is very satisfactory so far as it goes, but I would prefer that the government-should take the position that, for the present at all events-I suppose no government can decide what should be done in the future-absolutely nothing shall be done, and no company, Canadian, American, or any other, shall be allowed to dam the St. Lawrence for the purpose of producing power. I am satisfied that the power Is not needed, or, if it be needed, it can be got elsewhere, and got as cheaply, leaving the navigation of the St. Lawrence unaffected. I am glad to hear the discussion that has taken place, because I am satisfied that all we want to do is to have this matter aired in the House of Commons, and let the people of the Dominion, understand the exact position ; for if they* understand the exact position they will not allow the St. Lawrence to be dammed, and no government will dare allow it to be dammed.


George Eulas Foster: Or they will be damned themselves.


John Gillanders Turriff: Yes, as my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) says, they would be damned themselves. I am glad the American Congress has taken the sensible view and refused to pass the legislation asked for by the Aluminum Company ; -and I trust the government of Canada will do no less in the matter when the question is put up to them.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: I am sure the House and the country are under deep obligation to the leader of the opposition for having brought this matter to the attention of the House to have it thoroughly discussed as it has been to-day. My hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. Reid)

brought uip the question of transmitting the power-even if this Long Sault dam were constructed-to Prescott and other towns in eastern Ontario, and stated that power could be transmitted to Prescott just as easily from Ottawa as 'from Cornwall. He also spoke of other towns in eastern Ontario being supplied from powers developed on the Trent canal. The government, I understand, have disposed of the powers there, and the company that has taken them over is looking over the field to arrange for disposing of the power when it is developed. I wish the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) were in his place, but as he is not here, I would suggest to the Prime Minister to discuss with that -hon. gentleman the question of this and other powers, and to have them examined by competent engineers. All the water that passes through the Long Sault passes down by the Thousand islands. On the Canadian side of the Thousand islands, at the Fiddler's elbow, owing to the islands there 'being so close together, we have a current of eight or ten miles an hour for some distance. My opinion is that, at far less expense, and without interfering with navigation, without raising the water at all. but merely by putting in a current wheel, an undershot wheel, as much power could be developed as at the Long Sault rapids. Such wheels could foe put in some of the narrow channels which are not used for navigation. We have another power in eastern Ontario that could supply many points. The government own and control the Rideau canal. Between Newboro, at the north end of my constituency, and Kingston, there is a total fall of about 200 feet-at Kingston Mills about 50 feet ; at Upper and Lower Brewers, 20 feet ; Jones' "Falls, 80 feet ; Fosters', 15 feet ; Chaffee's, 15 feet ; Bedford Mills, 20 feet. All these falls could be concentrated into one power. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Harty) understands the situation, and I am satisfied will say a word in support of this suggestion. The effect of this improvement would be not merely to develop power but also to improve navigation. The navigation of the Rideau canal is practically spoiled because the waters are allowed to run away in the spring freshets. If the government wilt control the Bedford mills, owned by the Tett brothers, where the whole flow of water from Frontenac comes out, including the water from Bofob's lake and other lakes, a large power could be developed, and the water could foe prevented from running away in the spring. This could be reserved for navigation purposes, it would give the Rideau canal a full supply of water, and there would be a surplus with which to develop electrical power. I do not know how many hundreds of horse-power could be developed, but it would be a very large quantity. The hon. member for Kingston Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).
(Mr. Harty) has gone into it more exhaustively than I have, but both of these powers could foe developed, in the one case, without interfering with navigation -and, in the other case, to the benefit of navigation. I would recommend to the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that he would have both of these systems looked into and reserved for the benefit of the people of the eastern part of Ontario. We need not then go either to the Trent for a supply of power, or to the Ontario Electrical Power Commission, or to the Sault. We have powers in quantity to-day that are going to waste.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln).: Before this motion is put, I wish to say a word about it. I am afraid, from the action of the government, as evidenced by the hon. Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Ayles-worth), that we are going to continue the same bad habit that we have had here for a good many years, of sitting complacently by waiting until the mischief is done, then regretting it and trying to regain some of the ground which we have lost. This dealing with the waters on the boundary between the United States and Canada has a history and a history which is not very creditable to the ingenuity of Canadians. In 1901 the United States woke up, or had awakened before that-at all events, they began to act with regard to the necessity of looking out for their own interests with regard to the water-powers to be derived; from international streams. Away back in 1901, ten years ago, the Congress of the United States appointed a committee to get all the evidence ready so as to be prepared to chloroform and bunco Canada, and in that they have succeeded pretty well. There is no use of talking about the Waterways Treaty being a good deal for Canada; it does not give to us a half, or a quarter, of what we ought to have had without any treaty or arrangement. The United States were awake and active ten years, ago, and the result was the appointment of a committee by Congress to take hold of the matter in the interests of the United States in order to quietly get the evidence, or at all events, to ascertain their rights and to strike at Canada for a treaty, when they were ready and when Canada would not be. They succeeded-there is no use in pretending that they did not- in getting the better of us as they always do when they deal with us. It is about time that the Minister of Justice or somebody else woke up to the necessity of acting ahead of time and not afterwards with regard to these encroachments by the United States upon our rights. When I heard of that committee being appointed in 1901 I had the temerity to put a question upon the Order Paper-the first ques-

tion that I ever asked in this House-as to whether this government had knowledge of the appointment of the committee by the Congress of the United States, and if so what they were going to do about getting their evidence ready to meet the arbitration that it was proposed to bring about. The right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) answered that he had heard nothing of it, that it was entirely unknown to him, that nothing to his knowledge had taken place in regard to it. Four or five years afterwards, and not until four or five years afterwards, the suggestion was made that these matters should be dealt with by what became known subsequently as the International Waterways Commission. I point this out because the officers of the United States had their evidence all ready when the inquiry came to be made. In the meantime they had had their surveyors through the county which I have the honour to represent and the adjoining county of Welland, making all sorts of surveys, ascertaining all the data they could, so that if they were confronted at the tribunal with any evidence from the Canadian standpoint that did not suit them they could contradict it, or, if it did suit them they could let it go. For four or five years their military surveyors were permitted to make surveys with regard to the Niagara river to ascertain how the power could be developed and where the boundary was, and they were ready to negotiate for the Waterways Treaty when the Waterways Commission was appointed and the treaty was made. I am not objecting to this having been done, but I am pointing out what was done. I say this because of what I think is the unfortunate carelessness, not to use the stronger word, of the Minister of Justice in talking about these matters. The other day he said that apparently there was no need of doing anything. To-day he practically says the same thing, but revises, not to say recants, the oponion he gave then as to the necessity the government are under of doing something. The Minister of Justice read us a lecture upon no nroposition and no necessity. That is why I said what I did- no proposition and no necessity of doing anything just at present! There will always be a necessity in Canada of being ready to meet incursions from the United States in regard to these assets, rights and resources of this great country. The Minister of Justice does not seem to be quite clear as to what he ought to do in the interest of Canada, but he complacently says that because Congress has turned down the proposition as at present made, and since he made his speech last week-not before-there is no need of any alarm. Then the Minister of Justice took a great deal of time to say that he had not meant
us to understand what he said, or meant to say, in his speech on February 2, as we did understand it. The hon. gentleman, in the course of his statement in justification of what he said he meant to say on February 2, read a paragraph from the middle of page 2969 of ' Hansard.' The middle paragraph that he read is on ' Hansard,' but perhaps, on reflection I should read it in order to get the connection with what I desire to say. He read:
That is exactly the situation under the existing treaties. The right of navigation is paramount and that right is secured. That right exists in this United States channel which it is proposed to dam, just as it exists in the old Channel between Sheik island and the mainland of Ontario, which is to-day utilized as part of our Cornwall canal. The right of navigation is secured by treaty and is not proposed to be interfered with. On the contrary, it is proposed to be helped according to the plans of the promoters, and unless the right of navigation is interfered with, or the level altered on our own side, we have under existing treaties, no cause to object.
That is what the Minister of Justicq read to-day as justifying his opinion that as long s navigation was not .interfered with we in Canada could not object. But the hon. gentleman said something more immediately following that, and that is what I am going to read. He went on and said:	-jf f
I do not think much is to he gained by going back to the terms of the Ashburton Treaty because we have a new treaty on this very subject which goes further, which governs this very situation, and which has been ratified by both countries and is in force today. Under the provisions of that treaty, while it prohibits the construction of any obstructions in boundary waters except under certain circumstances, it impliedly gives permission to obstruct boundary waters.
In view of that statement, how can any hon. gentlemen on this side of the House be blamed for believing that the Minister ' of Justice was justifying this obstruction? Why should the Minister of Justice mention and reiterate everything that it would be possible to reiterate and suggest on behalf of the United States in attempting to usurp or take away from us those privileges? It is exactly as if we on this side of the House were representing Canada and the other side of the House the United States, and as if the Minister of Justice were presenting the United States argument. No counsel for the United States could put it stronger if he were contending that Canada had no right to object. Why should our Minister of Justice seek for ways and means and arguments to sustain any claim the United States might make, that we could not assert our rights on the St. Lawrence. The Minister of Justice spoke about the absence of a treaty, but

what is the waterways agreement if it is not a treaty? He told us that under Article 3 of the Waterways Treaty we could not prevent the Americans doing this if it did not affect the natural level or flow of boundary waters on either side of the line. But Article 3 must be consistently read with Articles 4, 8, 9 and 10 of the same treaty, and Article 4 reads:
The high contracting parties agree that, except in cases provided for by special agreement between them, they will not permit the construction or maintenance on their respective sides of the boundary of any remedial or protective works or any dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from boundary waters or in waters at a lower level than the boundary in rivers flowing across the boundary, the effect of which is to raise the natural level of waters on the other side of the boundary unless the construction or maintenance thereof is approved by the aforesaid International Joint Commission.
It is further agreed that the waters herein defined as boundary waters and waters flowing across the boundary shall not be polluted on either side to the injury of health or property on the other side.
Mark you, that applies not to one country, but to both. Neither is to permit any remedial or protective works, or any dams or other constructions in waters flowing from boundary waters, or in waters flowing from a lower level. But the Minister of Justice undertakes to assume that article 3 is to be read as if article 4 was not there at all, and to construe it that it is only to apply if the level of the water is lowered. Then article 8 reads in part:
The high contracting parties shall have, each on its own side of the boundary, equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined as boundary waters.
The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters and no use shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given preference over it in this order of precedence:
1.	Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes.
2.	Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation.
3.	Uses for power and for irrigation purposes.
I pause there to interject that the Joint International Commission undertake to lay down principles which have been adopted in the treaty, and which are supposed to govern both countries in this matter. That is for the future; that is to apply to matters arising, such as this, after the treaty was signed. First, absolute precedence is given to the uses of these waters for domestic and sanitary purposes. Has the Minister of Justice inquired whether this work would have had a prejudicial effect in relation to sanitary or domestic purposes. He assumes it has not, but, if he is not Mr. LANCASTER.
counsel for the United States, then in the interests of Canada he should undertake such an inquiry. Then the second preference is given to uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purpose of navigation, and, in the third place, to uses for power and irrigation purposes. The article goes on to say:
The foregoing provisions shall not apply to or disturb any existing uses of boundary waters on either side of the boundary.
The requirements for an equal division may in the discretion of the commission be suspended in cases of temporary diversions along boundary waters at points where such equal division cannot be made advantageously on account of local conditions, and where such diversion does not diminish elsewhere the amount available for use on the other side.
The commission in its discretion may make its approval in any case conditional upon the construction of remedial or protective works to compensate so far as possible for the particular use or diversion proposed, and in such cases may require that suitable and adequate provision, approved by the commission, be made for the protection and indemnity against injury of any interests on either side of the boundary.
Then comes article 9, which provides:
The high contracting parties further agree that any other question or matter of difference arising between them involving the rights, obligations or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other, along the common frontier between the United States and the Dominion of Canada, shall be referred from time to time to the International Joint Commission for examination and report, whenever either the government of the United States or the government of the Dominion of Canada shall request that such questions or matters of difference be so referred.
Does not the Minister of Justice think this is one of the matters of difference that ought to be so referred. Look at the responsibility which the treaty throws upon both governments ; look at the language of it for the protection of both parties. I ask, should not the Minister of Justice have done more than used his energy and ability to discuss the dictionary meaning of ' equally free and open?' Should he not use all his ingenuity to protect the rights^ of Canada, instead of endeavouring to point out that certain language in the Ashburton Treaty is not what it was supposed by the rest of us to be? In view of the fact that certain United States citizens have actually gone to Congress for power to interfere with the rights of the people of Canada, why did not the Minister of Justice submit to the International Waterways Commission that there was a difference such as is provided for in the treaty, and prepare a case for Canada, and submit it to this tribunal, which is supposed to be independent, and then we on this side of the House would not, from day to day, be compelled to apply to the

government to check these incursions by the United States upon the rights of our country. But what the Minister of Justice seemed to do was to throw out the hint to the United States that if they made the contention we were afraid they would make so far as he is concerned he would agree with them.
What greater invitation could there be to the United States to take everything they can get from us in this connection, than the knowledge that the first law officer of the Crown in the Dominion of Canada, ahead of time, has said that in his opinion they have these rights, and we cannot prevent them from exercising them if they choose to do so? The hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Turriff), I think quite properly, complimented the United States Congress upon turning down this charter; but I could not help noticing that he did not say a word about the Minister of Justice. He evidently thought that the Minister of Justice belonged to the other side, and was entitled to be condemned, because, by his speech of last week, he practically invited Congress to take what they could. But Congress, perhaps out of sympathy for Canada, not wishing to take too much from her all at once, showed a good deal more desire to protect Canada than the Minister of Justice evidences. The hon. member for Assiniboia referred to our experience on the Niagara river, where we got the worst of it in all these matters. As I demonstrated years before this treaty was negotiated, they were entitled, according to the boundary line, to one-tenth of the power, while this commission gave them more than four-tenths. They woke up years before we did and began to help themselves, and when we woke up it was too late to get full justice. As the hon. member for Assiniboia said, it will be the same in this case: we shall get about one-half of what we should have, while the United States will get two or three times what it should have. There is a way provided by the treaty in which this matter can be dealt with, and in order to show what powers this government possess, if they like to use them, I want to read a few words of Article X.
Any question or matters of difference arising between the high contracting parties involving the rights, obligations, or interests of the United States or of the Dominion of Canada either in relation to each other or to their respective inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the International Joint Commission by the consent of the two parties.
This government could ask the United States government to consent to have this matter adjusted. Now, Sir, I would urge upon the Prime Minister that he ought to see that his Minister of Justice takes a different position to what he has done on these matters. The Minister of Justice ought all the time to hold a brief for Canada. He
ought to be the keenest man in the whole country to suspect that these people are trying to make incursions upon us which they are not entitled to make. He does not seem to hold even a watching brief for Canada, but he stands up here and give3 the United States to understand that we cannot stop them. The Prime Minister should direct his Minister of Justice to make his complaint, and see that the Waterways Commission takes hold of this matter and settles it properly, instead of trifling with the House, as he has done to-day, by taking the ground that equally free and open navigation does not mean that both parties are to have free and open navigation, but means that we are not to have it if the other party does not want it. I protest against the apathy of the government in these matters, and I hope they will turn over a new leaf and be more alert to protect us, and not wait again until the horse is stolen before they lock the stable door.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

George Eulas Foster: Before the orders of the day are called, I see a reference in the papers to a telegram said to have been sent by the Minister of Finance to the High Commissioner in London with reference to the reciprocity arrangement made with the United States. I would like to ask the minister if he would be kind enough to lay a copy of that telegram on the table of the House before to-morrow.


Mr. FIELDING.: I think it is given correctly in the evening paper; but if I find any inaccuracy in it, I will send a copy in correct form to the hon. gentleman.


George Eulas Foster: I would like also to suggest that the papers on the Farmers' Bank, No. 110B and HOC, which take in the curator's report and the correspondence brought down by the Minister of Finance, be printed, and that the rule of the House be suspended for that purpose.


William Stevens Fielding: They are largely such formalities that I hardly thought it necessary, but I have no objection to the hon. gentleman's motion.
Motion (Mr. Foster), agreed to.


IRON AND STEEL BOUNTIES.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: The following item appears in the Toronto * Mail ' of Tuesday, February 7:


MAY RENEW STEEL BOUNTIES.
[Stage Direction]
Montreal, Que., Feb. 6.-Much curiosity was aroused on the ' street ' to-day when it became known that an important conference had taken place at the Windsor Hotel on Saturday, in which Finance Minister Fielding; Premier Murray, of Nova Scotia; Hon.
[Stage Direction]
A. K. Maclean, Attorney-General of Nova Scotia; Mr. E. M. Macdonald, M.P., for Pic-tou; and President J. H. Plummer, of the Dominion Steel Corporation participated. The subject of the conference, which was a protracted one, is understood to have been in connection with the representations that have been made to the Dominion government by the Canadian steel interests looking to a renewal of the bounties.
The general feeling is that the government will meet the wishes of the delegation and that a renewal of the bounties will be accorded.
I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) these questions:	Have the government changed the position they announced to the House some time ago in reference to the renewal of these bounties? Have the government not received in the last four or five years many protests and largely signed petitions against the renewal of these bounties? Are the government not aware that there is very decided and strong opposition throughout the country in regard to the renewal of steel bounties to enable the company to pay dividends upon its watered stock?
William Stevens Fielding: When the government have any change of view to announce on that subject it will be announced in parliament and not elsewhere.


George Eulas Foster: After the arrangement is made?


William Stevens Fielding: What arrangement?


George Eulas Foster: Any arrangement?


William Stevens Fielding: No arrangement has been'made. To the second question,' I cannot remember if petitions have been received. If my hon. friend will move for them in the usual way and there are such petitions I will be happy to expedite the bringing down of a return. To the third question, we are aware that there is a divided opinion upon nearly all the fiscal questions which engage the attention of the government and the House.


William Sora Middlebro: Have any negotiations taken place between the gentlemen named here and the Minister of Finance?


William Stevens Fielding: There has been no such conference as that which formed the basis of the hon. gentleman's question. There have been applications from the Dominion Iron and Steel Company for a continuance of the bounty on steel rods.


William Sora Middlebro: Has there'been a meeting between the Minister of Finance and the gentlemen named with a view to the continuing of the bounties?


William Stevens Fielding: There was an interview between the president of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company and myself for the purpose of enabling him to present his Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
views. That interview took place in my office in Ottawa some days ago.


HOURS OF LABOUR ON PUBLIC
[Stage Direction]
Mr. VERVILLE moved the third reading of Bill (No. 3) respecting the hours of labour on public works.
David Marshall: This Bill was discussed last week in my absence. I was a member of the committee to which it was referred. Everything was done to secure evidence, I have no fault to find on that score, but I am opposed to the Bill for the simple reason that it is discriminating. I do not know why we should provide for an eight hour day for men working on public buildings when men working on other buildings have to work ten hours. I believe the Bill, if it is made law, will cause trouble. I have had a great deal of experience with help for years. My experience extends over thirty years, and the complaint with us has been that we do not give them sufficient work. For that reason I wish to put myself on record as being opposed to the Bill, believing as I do, after hearing the evidence, that it will cause trouble.


John Stanfield: As a member of the special committee who heard the evidence last year, I desire to say a word. My objection to the Bill is not very strong as I am in favour of helping on the eight-hour movement and the labouring people, but I wish to place on record a communication which I have received from Moncton. It is as follows:
Moncton, N.B., December 28, 1910. John Stanfield, Esq., M.P.,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-We, the undersigned, representing organized labour in the city of Moncton, hereby enter an emphatic protest against the proposed amendments to the Eight-Hour Bill (known as Bill No. 3), which amendments, if passed, will utterly eliminate from its benefits the thousands of employees of the government on the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island railways. We particularly object to the striking out of section 5 of the Bill.
We believe that in the matter of hours and wages and in ideal working conditions generally the government of the country should be the leader, not the follower. To this end we would urgently request your support to the Bill as originally proposed.
Thanking you in advance for any support you can render us at this time.
We remain, yours very truly,
Trades and Labour Council.


CHAS. H. SMYTH,
[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Lodge 591 I. A. of Machinists.

[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Brotherhood of Railway Carmen. CHAS. H. SMYTH,
President.
l.	McKinnon,
.	Secretary.
Int. Brotherhood of Blacksmiths and Helpers CH. McQUARRIE,
.	President.
D. J. McGILLIVRAY, Secretary.
Brotherhood of Boilermakers and Iron Ship Builders.

[Stage Direction]
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Int. Boilermaker's Helpers. R. D. DONNELLY,
President.

[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
Electrical Workers.  A. R.@: Secretary.
Lodge 636 Typographical Union. MRS. M. BARNABY,
President.


J. A. ROBINSON,
[Stage Direction]
Secretary.
I wish to place this on record as the protest of these labour organizations against the passage of the Bill.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say something on this Bill, but as it is almost six o'clock, I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At six o'clock, the House adjourned.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 9, 1911.