[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMAND LAVERGNE demande :
1.	Est-il vrai que le minister© des Postes doit £mettre a l'oceasion du troisieir.e centenaire de Quebec une nouvelle serie de tim-bres-poste ?
2.	Dans l'affirmative, le minister© se pro-pose-t-il de reconnaitre et l'esprit de la Confederation et celui de la celebration en emet-tant et imprimant ces timbres dans les deux langues offieielles du pays?
Hon. RODOLPIIE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	Under consideration.



LESSER SLAVE LAKE-FISHING PRIVILEGES.

Mr. AMES asked :: 1.	Has the government leased the fishing privileges of Lesser Slave lake? If so, by whom were such privileges first obtained, to whom have they been assigned, and by whom are they at present exercised?
2.	On what date, for how long, and at what annual rental was such lease granted?
3.	Have any protests been received from residents of the neighbouring localities? If so, when, from whom, and what is the substance of the complaint?
i.	Has the government been asked to cancel such lease? If so, when and by whom?
5.	Has the government endeavoured to secure a voluntary diminution or abandonment of the privilege exercised under the lease by the holders thereof? If so, when and with what result?
6.	Did the lessees mention or suggest any sum in return for which they would forego their privileges? If so, what was the amount indicated?
7.	Do the same parties still operate without abatement to the full extent of the privileges contained in the lease ?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	The government has leased fishing privileges in Lesser Slave lake ; but not the exclusive fishing privileges there.
The lease was graned to John Kenneth McKenzie, president of the Imperial Fish Company, of Selkirk, Manitoba, and was assigned by him to the Athabaska Fish Company Limited and is still exercised by that company.
2.	May 14, 1904, for a term of nine years, at a rental of $10 per year, one of the conditions being that the lessee or the company shall expend $300 per annum during the three years from the 1st May, 1904, in the exploration of the territory leased, and during the remaing period of the lease at least $1,500 per year in the exploration, development, equipment and improvement of the property leased.
3.	No such protests have been received.
4.	No.
5.	No.
0.	No.
7. The conditions of lease remain unchanged.



POST OFFICE AT FARNHAM, QUEBEC.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Sproule-asked:
1.	Was any money voted at the last session of this House for the improvement of the post office at Farnham, Quebec?
2.	If so, has the money been spent? If not, why not?
3.	Has a report been made by the post office inspector on the improvements to such post office ?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	Yes, $5,500.
2.	No. It was not found practicable to carry out improvements suggested.
3.	Yes.



IMPROVEMENT OF GROUNDS SURROUNDING RIVIERE DU LOUP POST OFFICE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Sproule-asked:
1.	What works, if any, have been made on the grounds occupied by the post office at Riviere du Loup, during the years 1906 and 1907?
2.	How much has been spent for such improvements, by whom were they made, and what was the salary paid the inspector or the foreman?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1,	In October, 1906, a contract was let which included new plumbing work, carpenter work, plastering and painting in the building and also the following works on the grounds : drain from cellar to street, new plank sidewalks, pipe rail fence, sodding and tree planting and ditch at rear.
2.	(a) $1,765.75 ; (b) A. Fortier ; (e) The work was looked after by the caretaker and inspected by an officer from headquarters.



POSTMASTER AT RIVIERE DU LOUP.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Sproule-asked:
1.	What is the salary of Jules Gauvreau as postmaster of Riviere du Loup?
2.	Does he still occupy the position? If not, who succeeded him, and what is his salary?
3.	If Mr. Gauvreau has resigned, what is the cause of his resignation, does he still occupy any position in the post office, and is he paid as such?
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1,	2 and 3. Mr. Jules Gauvreau is no longer postmaster of Riviere du Loup (en bas). He tendered his resignation voluntarily and was succeeded by Mrs. Alice G. Mailloux. The salary and commissions of
the office amount to :-
Salary	$1,205	00Commission on box rents	
76	00Summer season allowance	
40	00Night allowance	
50	00Forward allowance	
160	00
Mr. BRODEUR,
Commission on money order, savings bank and postal note business for the year ended June 30,
1907	 97 29
Total	$1,628 29



INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-MR. EVARISTE TALBOT.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Sproule-asked:
1.	What is the position which Evariste Talbot occupies on the Intercolonial Railway, and what is his salary?
2.	Has he made any report to the Department of Railways and Canals or any other since a year?
Hon. G. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways and Canals) :: 1.	Evariste Talbot occupies the position of freight tracer on the Intercolonial Railway, his salary being $85 per month.
2.	His duties do not call for any report to the Department of Railways and Canals, but he is constantly employed making reports to the freight claims agent on lost and damaged freight.



WHARF AT NOTRE DAME DU PORTAGE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Sproule-asked:
1.	How much money was spent on the wharf at Notre Dame du Portage, in the county of Temiscouata, during the years 1906 and 1907?
2.	What was the quantity of wood or lumber used, what was the price paid for such wood, and who furnished it?
Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	In 1906	$4,982 62
In 1907	 2.013 36
2.	In 1906, from G. A. Binet, spruce timber : 6,280 lineal feet, 11 by 11 and 12 by 12, at 20 cents ; 577 lineal feet, 10 by 10, at 16 cents ; 8,861 lineal feet, round, at 15 cents ; 779 lineal feet, sundry, at 9* cents ; 12,360 feet plank, at $15 ; sundry lumber, $12.90.
In 1907, from J. S. Michaud, spruce : 260 lineal feet, 7 inches, at 5 cents.
From G'. A. Binet, spruce : 891 lineal feet, round, at 15 cents ; 296 lineal feet, 12 by 12, at 20 cents ; 26 lineal feet, 6 by 6, at 10 cents ; 6 feet plank, 20 cents.



ACTS OF SASKATCHEWAN LEGISLATURE.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LAKE-by Uriah Wilson-asked :
1.	Have the Acts of the legislature of the province of Saskatchewan, adopted in 1907, been duly transmitted to the Dominion government? If so, on what date were said Acts
received ?
2.	Has the Department of Justice reported upon said Acts ? If so, on what date was said report made ?
3.	Have any of the said Acts been disallowed ?
4.	When does the delay for disallowance expire ?

5.	Is it tlie intention of the government to disallow- any of said provincial Acts?
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice) :: 1.	The Act establishing the Supreme Court of the province and the Act establishing district courts were received on 13th March. 1907. The other statutes on 22nd April, 1907.
2.	Yes, on the 11th October, 1907.
3.	No.
4.	At the expiration of one year after receipt of the copy of the provincial statute by the Secretary of State.
5.	No occasion has appeared for any reconsideration of the question.
HOMESTEAD ENTRY'-RODERICK: McLEOD.
Mr. LAKE-by Mr. Uriah Wilson-asked :
1.	When did Roderick McLeod enter for the northeast quarter-section 18, 46a, 25, west second meridian?
2.	Has he fulfilled all his duties?
3.	Was leave of absence granted to him on any occasion ? If so, between what periods, and at whose recommendation ?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	Roderick A. McLeod entered for the N.E. 4, of section 18, township 46a, range 25, west of the second meridian, on the 11th of June, 1904.
2.	He has not fulfilled all his duties. He executed a declaration of abandonment, and on the 26th of March, 1907, the agent was instructed to carry out cancellation and to permit his mother, if eligible, the privilege of re-entry, in view of the fact that she had been in residence since the 15th of June, 1906. having a log house worth $200, 60 head of cattle, with stabling worth $100 and 5 acres of breaking. Mrs. Jessie McLeod secured re-entry on the 19th of April, 1907.
3.	On the 8th of May, 1906, Mr. McLeod's entry was protested until the 1st of August following, by the commissioner's direction.



PRINCE RUPERT-COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS.

Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES-by Mr. Sproule- asked :
1.	Who is the present collector of customs at Prince Rupert?
2.	When was he appointed, and whom did he succeed?
3.	Why was B. R. McDonald, the late collector. superseded by the present incumbent?
4.	Has the present incumbent large interests in mercantile concerns in Prince Rupert r
5.	Does he own or partly own a cannery and sawmill or either, in that part of British Columbia?
6.	What position is assigned to B. R. Me Donald, the late collector?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs) :: 1.	George W. Morrow.
2.	He is the first permanent collector of the port, appointed February 15, 1908.
3.	B. R. McDonald was transferred temporarily to Prince Rupert, as acting collector, from Rossland, where he was collector.
4.	The government is not aware that Mr. Morrow has large interests in mercantile concerns in Prince Rupert.
5.	The government is not aware that he owns or partly 'owns a cannery and sawmill or either in that part of British Columbia.
6.	B. R. McDonald's rank was formerly changed from collector of customs at Rossland, British Columbia, to that of a customs officer at Prince Rupert, by order in council of 4th April, 1908. He is the second officer at the port of Prince Rupert.



GEOLOGICAL SURVEY.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	What was the total expenditure of the Geological Survey Department in 1896, and each of the folowing years up to the present time ?
2.	When was the mining branch of the Geological Department opened, and what amount has been expended each year in the mines branch ?


Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN (Minister of
Mines) :
1. .
Year	Total
1896-	97	$116,983	311897-	98	
106,904	121898-	99	
113,510	011899-	1900	
112,824	471900-	1901	
113,377	641901-	1902	
117,586	441902-	1903	
129,553	091903-	1904	
127,384	611904-	1905	
170,082	971905-	1906	
168,376	641906-	1907	(9	months)..	. .	145,582	151907-	1908	to	March	31______ 204,280	432.	There is no mining branch of the Geological survey ; but the Mines branch of the Department of Mines was opened 3rd May, 1907. and the expenditure has been : 1907-08 to March 31	
34,255 00



IMMIGRATION HALL, EAST SELKIRK.

Mr. STAPLES asked :: 1.	What furniture, stoves, supplies, cattle, hogs, horses and other effects were attached to the immigration hall at East Selkirk?
2.	Has any or all of these effects been disposed of ? If so, how, by public or private
g^Jg P
3.	Who disposed of them, and what were the receipts from sale?
4.	What has become of the hall, or is it still owned by the government


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: A report is being obtained from the commissioner of immigration at Winnipeg in this relation. It will be brought down as soon as received. The information however - is voluminous and I would ask that it be brought down in the form of a return.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Stands as a notice of motion for a return.



PLAYGREEN LAKE

Mr. STAPLES asked :: 1.	Is the government aware that the lessees of the waters north of lake Winnipeg, including Playgreen lake, have not made the expenditure called for under such lease?
2.	Is it the intention of the government to cancel the lease?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR. (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1- No, the reports show that a greater expenditure has been incurred than was called for by the lease. Playgreen lake is not under lease from the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
2. So far as reports have been received the conditions of the lease are being carried out; but the department is procuring further information on the subject.
STEAMER ' LADY OF THE LAKE/


Mr. STAPLES asked :: 1.	How many of the crew of the government steamer * Lady of the Lake ' are under pay during the winter, who are they, and what positions do they hold on said boat?
2.	What salaries do they get during summer season, what do they get during winter, and what are their duties?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) :: 1.	Three : Alex. Vance, master; ffm, Simpson, mate; Robert Rennie, engineer.
2.	Summer salaries; master, $100 per month; mate, $65 per month; engineer, $85 per month.
Winter salaries; master, $50 per month; mate, $32.50 per month; engineer, $42.50 per month.
Duties in summer comprise all the work they are called upon to perform in their respective positions.
In winter such officers are held under half pay subject to the call of the department for duty at any moment.



COLD STORAGE SHIPMENTS.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: hat was the total number of boxes of cheese, butter, eggs, bacon, apples in boxes and barrels, respectively, shipped in cold storage, the number in cooled air chambers, and the number shipped in ordinary storage in twelve months previous to March L 1908?


Mr. STAPLES.: 


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: 

MAIL ROUTE TENDERS.

Mr. ARMSTRONG asked :: 1.	Are all mail routes let by tender? If not. why not?
2.	Were tenders called for the carrying of mail on the route between Brewster post office, in South Huron, and Park Hill, in North Middlesex?
3.	If tenders were called for on above route, what was the date of last tender, and when will said tender expire?
4.	What was the date of the previous tender, and to whom were the tenders sent?
5.	What was the amount of each contract, the names of each tenderer, and the amount in each case?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Tenders are invited for all services costing more than $200 per annum. The

Postmaster General has power under the provisions of the Postal Act to enter into contracts for amounts less than $200 without calling for tenders. When the price was reasonable and it was in the public interest to do so this has sometimes been done, but even in these cases tenders are called for unless it is shown to the department that the price at which it is offered to perform the service is reasonable and reason exists in the public interests why the contract should be arranged without delay. Expiring contracts, the prices of which have been determined by public tender, are also open to renewal if as a result of the inspector's report the Postmaster General is satisfied that the amounts at which the services are being performed are reasonable and as low as would likely be secured if tenders were called for, and that the services of the contractors have been satisfactory.
2.	Yes, tenders were invited in June, 1900. Only one tender-was received that'of Maxim Gratton at $500. This was considered by the department excessive and the inspector at London was instructed to secure lower offers, with the result that a contract was awarded to John Ravelle at $300 per annum from the 1st October, 1900. This contract has since, in view of the satisfactory manner in which it was performed, and in view of the fact that the contract price represented $200 less than the offer secured by public tender, been renewed for four years on the 1st of July, 1904, and also from the 1st of July, 190S. In both cases the inspector reported to the Postmaster General that the service was being satisfactorily performed, and that the price was reasonable.
3.	Answered by No. 2.
4.	Notices inviting tenders were posted in all the post offices on the route, and in the principal places of business in the district served.
5.	Answered by No. 2.



POST OFFICE RETURNS.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many returns have been asked for since the opening of parliament requiring an answer from the Post Office Department?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Eleven returns have so far been asked of this department since the opening of parliament. Of this number eight have already been answered.



MILITIA SUPPLIES.

Mr. WORTHINGTON asked :: 1. Has a contract been made for groceries and provisions for the active militia at Halifax for the current year ? If so, were tenders called for?
2.	Who were the tenderers for bacon, what were their offers, what is the price in the current contract, and with whom has this contract been made?
3.	Who got the contract last year and the year before?
4.	At what price did he agree to supply breakfast bacon?
5.	Has the department received information that the bacon furnished was not breakfast bacon, but shoulder or roll bacon?
6.	If so, was any action taken to ascertain the truth of that statement?
7.	Had the department an offer to supply roll bacon for the current year? If so, from whom and at what price?


Hon. Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence) :: 1.	(a). Yes. (b). Tenders were called by newspaper advertisement.
2.	No tenders for bacon separately were called for. The custom of the department is to make a contract for groceries and vegetables, including bacon. Only one tender was received for groceries and vegetables, that of Mr. J. F. Outhit. His prices were : for breakfast bacon, 131 cents per pound ; green bacon 7 cents yer pound.
Messrs. Davis and Fraser submitted a tender for bacon and lard only, on the form of tender for groceries and vegetables ; the prices being, for breakfast bacon, 12 7-8 ; for green bacon, -Ilf. To their tender was attached a letter quoting lOf cents per pound for shoulder, or rolled bacon, smoked; and 10 cents per pound for shoulder or rolled bacon, green.
The contract for groceries and vegetables, including bacon, was made with Mr. J. F. Outhit; the prices for bacon being those specified in his tender, as above.
3.	Mr. J. F. Outhit.
4.	In 1906, 14 cents, in 1907, 13f cents.
5.	In letters received from Messrs. Davis and Fraser, rival dealers, the opinion was expressed that rolled bacon was being supplied, instead of English breakfast bacon.
6.	No action was necessary as no complaint from the supply officer was received by the department.
7.	(a). Yes. (b). See answer No. 2.



GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS IN POLITICS.

Mr. CROCKET asked :: 1.	Has the Minister of Customs received any communication complaining of the active participation of Mr. P. G. Veniot, collector of customs at Bathurst, in the late provincial election in Gloucester county, New Brunswick ?
2.	If so, in what manner and to what extent was it complained that Mr. Veniot engaged in said election?
3.	What action has the minister taken, or what action does he propose to take, in the matter?
4.	What is the salary of the said collector?


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Complaint has been received against


Mr.  P. J.@: Yeniot, collector of customs at Bathurst, as to active participation in the recent provincial election in Gloucester, N. B. Mr. Veniot has been advised of the complaint, and his explanation requested. His salary is $1,100 a year.



DREDGING AT WIARTON.

Mr. BENNETT asked :: 1.	Who were the parties who tendered for dredging done at Wiarton in 1907?
2.	What proportions or quantities of clay, sand, and boulders were in the estimates for which $25,026 was paid to Mr. Bowman at Wiarton in 1907?
3.	Was the request of the council of Wiarton for said work verbal or in writing?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works) :: 1.	A. P. Bowman and C. S. Boone.
2.	Clay, 115,800 cubic yards ; clay and sand, 5,800 ; clay and boulders, 2,200 ; boulders, 400, ; total, 124,200 cubic yards.
3.	In writing.



THE SOULANGES CANAL.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. BERGERON-by Mr. Sproule-asked:
1.	Was an investigation held on the Sou-1 an res canal? If so, when, where, and for what reason?
2.	Who was the commissioner?
3.	How many witnesses were examined?
4.	What is the cost of the investigation?
5.	What is the report, if any?
Hon. RODOLFHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes, at Vaudreuil, on account of certain charges made against the overseer.
2.	Mr. Louis Boyer, advocate of Montreal, was appointed commissioner, by order in council, dated 5th March, 1908.
3.	No report has yet been received from the commissioner.
THE 'LABOUR GAZETTE/
Mr.	BERGERON-by Mr. Sprouleasked :
1.	Where has the 'Labour Gazette' been printed in English and French since its existence?.
2.	What is the cost of such printing?
3.	What is the cost of the ' Labour Gazette '
altogether ?	-


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) :: 1.	The ' Labour Gazette ' from the date of its establishment has been printed in Euglisn and French by the Printing Bureau or by arrangements made by the Printing Bureau. From April, 1906, the * Labour Gazette ' has been printed at the office of the Ottawa ' Free Tress.'
2.	Cost of printing and paper.


William Paterson: 

CANADA-FRANCE STEAMSHIP SERVICE.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 145) to amend the Act relating to Ocean Steamship Subsidies-Mr. Bro-(leur-read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon.
Mr. SPROULE.: Is it to be paid $100,000 or $200,000 ?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We will undertake to pay $100,000 for eighteen trips, being at the rate of $5,555 per trip. If it makes other trios, the company is to be paid at the same ratio for the increased number, but the total payment is not to exceed $200,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What regulations will be put in the contract regarding freight rates and cold storage?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: This subsidy is based on a contract passed some years ago. The government proposes to require that cold storage facilities be established on this line. That is also provided by the contract about to expire. As regards freight rates, we intend proposing that they should be under the control of the government. I do not know whether the company will agree to that, but it is the intention of the government to try to get that clause put into the contract. It is proposed, however, that the freight rates shall not be higher between a Canadian and a French port than between an American and a French port. The gov-eminent intend exacting this clause, and in that respect the contract will be a departure from the others, because there is no such

provision in any contract made so far with any company subsidized by the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: E, What abo.ut the rate of speed?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think in the old contract no rate of speed was provided and it is not in this.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Practically we have no definite information. We are told that there will be cold storage, but we are not told what kind or how much. When we ask about freight rates, we are told that they will not be higher than the rates between Prance and Boston. That is very indefinite. The rate of speed, we are told, is something to be agreed on later. In fact, we are not given any information at all.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The cold storage facilities are to be absolutely under the control of the government and to be provided as required by the Department of Trade and Commerce. That was the provision in the old contract, and I do not anticipate any difficulty on that score. All shipping companies are interested in having cold storage facilities on their steamers. This line will have to carry butter and cheese and there is no reason why it should not furnish proper cold storage facilities. As regards the rate of speed, it is provided in the contract what time shall be taken on each voyage. I think it is eleven or twelve days.


Mr. MONK.: When this question came up the other day, I was not opposed to the principle of our having direct communication with Prance. Does my hon. friend not remember that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend said he was not opposed to the subsidy, but he proposed an amendment to provide that the freight rates should be under the control of the government.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad to have this admission of the hon. minister because a statement was made in his Montreal organ


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Have I an organ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I believe so. The statement was made in it that Col. Hughes and Dr. Sproule with Mr. Monk opposed altogether the idea of having direct communication by steamship with Prance. I am glad to take note of the minister's admission that there was no opposition offered to the principle of having such communication. What ground has he for anticipating that we will do a good business with France in butter and cheese? The French export a great deal of butter, and my hon. friend knows that there is no market there for the cheese we make here.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With regard to cheese. I was told, when in France in connection with the negotiation of the treaty, that quantities of cheese were consumed in France supposed to have been produced in Canada. This cheese was sent to England, warehoused there and afterwards sent to France. Tills was the statement made to me several times, and those who gave me the information led me to believe that it was absolutely correct, and I had every reason to believe that they were well informed. As to butter, my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) knows that this line of steamers will Tun not only between Canada and France, but to England as well. Last year, considerable quantities of butter and cheese were exported by this line, especially butter to London. And I do not see why this should not be done.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There is no doubt that the line may be used to export butter to England; but I understood the minister (Mr. Brodeur) to say that he wanted to insist on cold storage because there was to be an export of butter from Canada to France. The exporters of butter in Montreal will tell the minister, that, under the present conditions, there is no probability of our exporting butter to France.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There may be some trade in salt butter.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: There may be a little, but not much. I do not question his statement that he received the information as to cheese of which he has told us. But I do not think he will be able to substantiate the statement that our cheese, which is exported to England in large quantities, finds its way to France. I would like to ask why the hon. minister intends making it a condition that the freight rates on this line shall be subject to the American rates. Can he give us any idea what the rates are between American ports and Le Havre?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think there is any fixed rule; the rates vary according to the circumstances and the time of year. But I understand that those who engaged in negotiations with the government on this subject were willing to undertake that the freight rates should not be higher between Canada and France than between the United States ports and France.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Which reminds one of the Irishman, who, when asked his age, said he was the same age as his brother Mike- both were born in the same month. It has always been understood that those taking advantage of the cold storage were charged so much above the regular freight rates, and thus one could judge pretty accurately whether the exporter would be inclined to ship in cold storage. So, the two elements must be taken into account, first, whether the cold storage is adequate in every respect and kept in proper condition, and, second, whe ther the rates are so low that the method of shipment will be used. The information given to the House by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) in answer to a question went to show that, in shipping apples to

England, only a few thousand barrels were sent In cold storage while a great many thousand barrels were sent by the ordinary means. And so with eggs and butter. It must be, therefore, that either the cold storage is not adequate or not kept in proper condition, or the rates must be too high for the ordinary shipper to use the cold storage system. Without information on these points, we cannot very well know what return we are likely to get for this subsidy. We are granting $5,000 for each trip. What for ? Not merely for the purpose of establishing a steamship line between here and France but to develop trade. But trade can only be developed by providing suitable transportation at reasonable figures. I think the government should have been in a position to give the House the information we are asking, so that we might be able to judge whether or not we are likely to get any substantial return from this expenditure. Up to the present time we have failed to get any information, as far as I can see.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I find, from the trade and navigation returns that neither butter nor cheese is exported from Canada direct to France. It is possible that cheese may have been sent to the United States or to England and thence to France, but in that case, Canada would not get credit for it. .


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My information is that the cheese was exported to Britain and thence to France.


David Henderson: However, nothing in these lines seems to have been exported direct to France. Now, I would like to ask what advantage will imports into Canada have if brought in by this subsidized line ? We understand, from the discussion we had the other evening, that Canadian goods, to secure the advantage of the minimum tariff to France must be exported directly, or if they go, for instance, through England to France, they must go direct by the vessel and in unbroken bulk from the British port. Will goods imported from France into Canada have to come the same way? Suppose they were sent through England, or through the United States, will they get the benefit of Canada's intermediate tariff? Or will the government, in that case, insist upon the general tariff?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If the goods are imported from France direct, of course, there will be no doubt about it. If the goods are imported through England to Canada, the rates will be the same-that is, the rate under the treaty will apply. Suppose that goods are sent from France to some British port, Liverpool for example, and thence from Liverpool to Canada. These will be subject to the duty provided in the treaty. If, under the treaty, they enjoy the benefit of the intermediate tariff, they will be dutiable under the intermediate tariff. If they belong to the class coming under the most reduced Mr. SPROULE.
rates, what we call schedule C, they will be liable to the duty mentioned in that schedule.


David Henderson: Assuming that silk goods, for example, are exported from France to London, are repacked by a London dealer, and the Canadian purchases them through the London dealer. The goods come from France to London, they are packed and sent to Canada, what would be the tariff under which they would come into Canada ? Would it be the intermediate tariff?


Mr. FIELDING.: They would come under the treaty, provided satisfactory proof of origin was furnished. If they could prove that these goods, although sent from Great Britain, were French goods and of the class mentioned in the treaty, they would be entitled to the benefits of the tariff when shipped from Great Britain.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The goods will have to be imported direct, whether from France or from a country enjoying the benefits of the preferential tariff. I think those are the words of the treaty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Then we are in this position, that we give a great advantage to France.


William Stevens Fielding: In what respect?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: In this respect, that we cannot ship from England to France at all after transhipment, whereas the French can ship here through London. In the case of silks, goods can be transhipped, repacked, and after an interval sent to Canada, and get the benefit of the special list under the treaty, and no article that we ship to France through Liverpool, even if transhipment takes place on our part, can benefit by the treaty. Surely that is not possible.


William Stevens Fielding: That is quite possible, but we thought it desirable that French goods coming here by way of Great Britain should receive the benefits of the treaty.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why not give us the same advantage?


William Stevens Fielding: Because the French government, by their national law, will not do so. They have the right by their law of imposing the surtax, and all we, in our wis-is to put in a proviso that if we, in our wisdom, wish to impose the surtax we can do so. We have not deemed it advisable to do so. If we want to put ourselves on even terms with our French friends, we may do so by imposing a surtax, because we have put this proviso in the treaty:
Provided, however, that nothing in this article shall exempt the products c>f either country from any surtaxe d'entrepot that is now, or hereafter may be, imposed on products imported indirectly.
The French authorities impose a surtax ; if we wanted to be on even terms with them

we can impose a surtax. Up to the present we have not thought it advisable to do so.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Minister of Finance is always telling us what the French law is. We have a law too, and we have broken that law when we made the treaty; we have altered our law in order to make the treaty with France. Why did not my hon. friend tell them that we never impose a surtax, that we raised our taxation in an entirely different manner, and that we could not easily resort to that form of taxation. When nations meet together in order to conclude treaties, those treaties are supposed to supersede the law ; favours are granted mutually and the law is changed to that extent. In this case I did not think that the French could send their goods to London or any port in England, and then those goods might come out here at any time on proof of origin and get the benefit of that treaty. We are bound down ; we cannot tranship through England in any way. and we have to subsidize a steamship line in consequence. I did not think, when there was such a demonstration in honour of the Minister of Finance, and a still larger demonstration in honour of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, that things were as bad as that.


William Stevens Fielding: I' cannot agree with my hon. friend when he says that the law has been broken. There has been no law broken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have changed our tariff law.
Mr. FIELIHaG. We have not broken any law. A proposal was made to amend the law in precisely the same way as we propose to amend any other law, and when the Senate and Commons of Canada decide to amend the tariff law as proposed, then and not till then will this take effect. Therefore there is no breaking of the law. That is the first point. The second point was, that we should have told the French authorities that we did not impose anything like a surtax. Well, we could not tell the French authorities that, because the statement would be untrue. We do impose surtaxes in Canada, but my hon. friend I suppose forgot that at the moment. Now, the only difference between the position of the two countries is this, that it suits the purpose of the national law of France to establish a surtax under the conditions which have been spoken of ; it does not suit Canada to impose a surtax under those circumstances. But we have reserved the right to impose that surtax if we want to do it. If we think it will do us any good to require those goods to come direct from a French port to Montreal or any other Canadian port, rather than by way of Great Britain, all we have to do is to exercise the right that we have reserved to ourselves in this treaty and impose the surtax. If the surtax is not imposed in Canada, it is not because we have 204
given up the right to impose it, but because, in our judgment, from a Canadian point of view, it has not so far seemed desirable. So I fail to see the point of my hon. friend's observations. If we want to put ourselves on exactly even terms with France, the parliament of Canada has the right to do so.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: It seems to me the observations of the Minister of Finance are not to answer to the remarks of my hon friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The real point of the argument made by my hon. friend has not been met at all. It is this : All treaties of this kind are designed to effect a certain change in the fiscal laws of both countries, that is the object in view when you begin negotiations for a treaty. Therefore, it is not an answer to my hon. friend for the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to say that the French law is so and so. Our law was of the same character until we made this treaty, and proposed to sanction that treaty by Act of this parliament. Therefore it is merely begging the question to say that the French law is so and so. Our law would equally have prevented this entry if it remained as it was. The whole point of the observations and alignments of my bon. friend from Jacques Cartier is this ; The treaty is designed to encourage commerce from Canada to France and from France to Canada ; it is designed to assist France by giving her a certain market for certain of her products in Canada; it is designed to assist Canada by giving her a market for certain of her products in France. The question as to whether "these improved markets will be found in either country depends largely on the question of transportation. As the matter has been left by this treaty, France enjoys the privilege and advantage of sending her goods by the numerous steamship lines which ply between Great Britain and Canada, whereas Canada does not enjoy the advantage of sending her goods to France by the same steamship lines. That is the whole matter, as it seems to me, in a nutshell. Under the terms of this treaty, a decided advantage is left on the side of France in that respect.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is entirely wrong. The government, by the terms of this treaty, have done nothing of the sort, on the contrary the government, by the terms of this treaty, have specifically the right to impose a surtax if we want to impose it.


Robert Laird Borden: Are you going to impose It ?


William Stevens Fielding: I have no hesitation in saying that that is a question for the future and that is a matter in the judgment of parliament. If we should in the future impose the surtax on goods coming from France by way of Great Britain then the 1 two things would be equal. If we do not



impose the surtax on goods coming from Great Britain it is not because we have not the right to do it, it is not because we are under any obligation to the French government not to do it, but it is because we do not think it expedient to do it. But, since the French government say that it is part of their national law which they cannot change, we take the precaution to say that if at any time in the future we want to make it a part of our national law we shall have the right to do so, and that the treaty shall not be a barrier to it. It seems to me very simple.


Robert Laird Borden: It is very simple indeed, and the simplicity amounts to this that while France'will be enjoying the benefit and advantage of a dozen steamship lines by which she can send her goods to this country we shall get the advantage of only one steamship line-the one contemplated by this Act-and all the consolation that our shippers and producers can enjoy will be the knowledge that this government has the right to impose the surtax which my hon. friend the Minister of Finance admits he has absolutely no intention of imposing at any time in the immediate future. What is the policy of the government in regard to this surtax ? Have they any policy at all in regard to it ? If they intend to exercise that right in future under what conditions and upon what grounds and for what reasons will they do so ? If the Minister of Finance declares, as he does declare, that this country enjoys some advantage by the reservation of that right, under the terms of the treaty, under what conditions do they propose to exercise it ? My hon. friend argues that he has secured this right. Then under what conditions does he propose to exercise it ? I do not think my hon. friend will desire this question to be put to him by the shippers and producers of Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: I do desire it. I do not think the question has any appropriateness at all. In the first place, may I suggest, that we are not discussing the treaty and if it were such a vital and important point as my hon. friend has suddenly conceived it to be might it not have been his duty to have raised that question when the treaty was before parliament ? However, I do not attach any importance to that.


Robert Laird Borden: It was raised.


William Stevens Fielding: I say again that if my hon. friend thinks it is the part of wisdom for us to shut out English goods, or French goods coming by way of England, we have the power to do it. My hon. friend asks what is the policy of the government in this matter. If the government had a proposal to make on the subject it would be their duty to expound and pro-Mr. FIELDING
claim it. As they have no proposal to make they are not called upon to expound or proclaim any thing about it. However, I will answer my hon. friend. He wants to know what the policy is. The policy at the present time is not to impose any surtax. Is that clear ? It is a little late for my hon. friend to wake up to the importance of this question. He allows the treaty to go through and now he comes to something in it that he never heard of before. I do not think my hon. friend is so dense on the subject as he appears to be.


Robert Laird Borden: I hope I am no't as dense as the Minister of Finance seems to be. As a matter of fact the surtax was discussed in the debate of the French treaty. I do not think the hon. gentleman is accurate when he says that it was not discussed. It may not have been gone into exactly on the same line but it certainly was discussed if my recollection is correct. The hon. gentleman has very frankly declared his policy : it is that he has reserved a right, which he regards as sufficient compensation for the certain right that he has given to France, and that having reserved that right he has no policy with regard to its exercise.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, he has.


Robert Laird Borden: What is it ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is for the present not to exercise it.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I say.


William Stevens Fielding: No, that is not what the hon. gentleman said.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, let us take it at that then. He has reserved the right as compensation for certain advantages which he has given France and it is his policy not to exercise the right which he has so reserved as compensation. I am very much obliged to the hon. gentleman for the statement


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is quite welcome to it.


Robert Laird Borden: It may be a consoling circumstance to the shippers and producers of this country to know that having given France a certain advantage and having reserved a certain power as compensation for that advantage the policy of the government is not to exercise it.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is very much alarmed about the shippers of this country but it may surprise him to know that no shipper has raised a question such as that to which he alludes. I do not know of a shipper in this country who will regard it as any advantage that we should impose the surtax and shut off importation from England.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not talking about shutting off importation from England at all. I am talking about the right which should have been obtained of sending goods to France by the steamship lines which bring goods to this country- We will have a dozen steamship lines bringing goods from France to this country but we will have only one line taking goods to France.


William Stevens Fielding: If we do not want a dozen steamship lines bringing goods to this country this parliament has the right or power to cut off eleven of them at any time that we think it wise to do so.


Robert Laird Borden: But this parliament 'could not get the other eleven steamship lines to carry the goods of our shippers and producers to France.


William Stevens Fielding: When my hon. friend talks about insisting upon making arrangements which are -at variance with the well known laws of France, and which they will not change, the hon. gentleman ought to know that he is talking very absurdly. This question of the surtax is part of the national law of France. If we do not wish to make a treaty under those conditions we need not do so but we must make our treaty with France with a recognition of the fact that they are attached to that principle and that they will not change it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Of course the imposition of a surtax by Canada at the present moment, when we have just concluded a treaty with France, is such a preposterous and ridiculous idea that I quite understand the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) declaring the policy of the government to be that they will not do it. In what position do we find this question ? In the first place I would remind the Minister of Finance that when the treaty was discussed these matters were gone into. The question of shipment through England at that time was discussed and although objection was taken to it I must confess that I never understood that French shippers had such an immense advantage over us. What is the position as I find it now ? We went to France and we insisted on direct shipment. There is no question about that; it was admitted the other day. We insisted that in order to benefit by the treaty goods should be shipped direct from one country to the other and then, without asking for any assistance from France, we took the responsibility of the payment of $200,000 a year to help that direct shipment without having the advantage of shipment through England or of the lines of steamers that come from England to Canada. The result is that our own shippers are met by a formidable question of monopoly. Without competition we are bound to ship direct to France. One would suppose from what the 204*
Minister of Finance says that the surtax law of France forms part of the constitution of the country. It is like our own laws; we changed our law in order to include this treaty and they changed theirs.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: No, they changed their constitution, but not their commercial law.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: They did not change their constitution but they changed their tariff law as against ourselves. The law with respect to the surtax is not in the constitution of the French Republic. That law, like another, simply applies to shipments through European ports and the object of it is to protect France from undue competition from European shipping. Why cannot they allow us to ship through England since we allow them to ship through England, why cannot they modify their law to that extent. On the question of shipments, it seems to irritate the Minister of Finance that the Canadian plenipotentiaries have been outdone, and I am not surprised that Mr. Pichon speaking in the French Chamber seemed to speak like a man who had triumphed over our negotiators.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend must have had in mind the negotiators of the earlier treaty which permitted just the condition which he has attributed to this treaty. Under the old treaty our goods could only be sent direct to France just as under the present treaty. There is no new condition in that. The present treaty as respects shipments of goods to France is precisely the same as the former treaty which my hon. friend admired so much. But now in this treaty we have made it reciprocal. It was one sided under the old condition of affairs and now it is made reciprocal. Under the former treaty we were obliged to send our goods direct and they now can only send their goods direct from France, or by way of England so long as we see fit to allow it. They cannot send via the United States. There the principle of the nonEuropean country comes in. I point out again that as respects the shipment of Canadian goods to France there is substantially no change. The law which has been in force for the last fifteen years is the law which continues in this treaty, but as respects the other side of the question we say that as whereas formerly they wTould have the right to send goods out here through any country and get the benefit of the treaty, they must now send them either direct or by way of Great Britain, and if we want to put a limitation as respects Great Britain we have the right to do it. My hon. friend will therefore see that the one-sidedness which he speaks of existed in the old treaty but is not to be found in the new one.


David Henderson: I do not understand the Minister of Finance when he says that

goods from France cannot be shipped through the United States. I am not aware of any such restriction so far as I can read the treaty. They may ship through Hamburg, through London, through Liverpool, or through Hong Kong, or through the United States if they think fit.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If goods were shipped from Germany would my hon. friend say they will enjoy the benefit of the intermediate tariff ?


David Henderson: I am not discussing that feature of it at all. I am discussing the feature of the treaty which gives to the public of France all the privileges and gives us comparatively none. In that way I think the French negotiators have got the best of the deal. Now, in order to get the advantage of the minimum tariff with France we are called upon to provide direct connection between France and Canada, and on the other hand France is not obliged to export directly to Canada. Should the Minister of Marine and Fisheries go to a steamship company and say: I want to make an arrangement with yon to give you a subsidy to carry goods direct from Canada to France in order that they will get the advantage of the minimum tariff, it would be very natural for that steamship company to ask : What return cargo will we get? and the minister would have to answer: We cannot guarantee you any return cargo because we failed to insist that the French republic should send their goods direct to Canada-they may send them via the United States, they may send them by Great Britain or any other route they may think fit. Had we insisted upon direct shipments coming to Canada the same as respects goods going from Canada to France it would have been a very important matter when we come to arrange for the subsidy which we are obliged to arrange for in order to get this direct exportation. To my mind that is where we are going to sustain the greatest loss. I fear we will have to grant a larger subsidy to convey our goods directly to France to get the advantage of the minimum tariff simply because we cannot assure the steamship company that under the treaty they will get any return cargo whatever. However, there is no use discussing it now; it is all signed, sealed and delivered, it was all completed before ever it came before the House. All we can do now is to criticise the acts of the ministers who negotiated the treaty in the hope that if they ever have to negotiate another we may be able to give them some light as to how they can get better advantages for Canada, and not allow the other country to get all the advantages. We do not expect we are going to make the treaty any better now, we are simnly pointing out what we regard as oversights on the part of the negotiators and to show that in negotiating this treaty thev have not got all
Mr. HENDERSON
the advantages we thiuk ought to reasonably accrue to Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: The desire of my hon. friend (Mr. Henderson) to divert attention from the inequalities of the old treaty


David Henderson: Excuse me, I made no reference to the old treaty whatever. I see no advantage in discussing the merits or demerits of the old treaty because it is a thing of the past and we are repealing it. If the negotiators of the old treaty made a mistake the present negotiators should have taken a lesson from it and made a much better treaty. For them to say they have got something just as good as "we had before, is no argument whatever.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman is a veteran member of the House and he was here no doubt in 1893 and 1894 and gave enthusiastic support to that old treaty. I do not see why he should now have a disposition to repudiate it and say he is not responsible. So far as direct shipments of Canadian products to France go the provisions in this treaty are" just the same as they were in the old treaty. The only change that is made is that that which was one sided before is now reciprocal and that the French products, which formerly could come to Canada through any channel in the wide world must now come either direct from France to Canada or by way of Great Britain. We are willing to have them come by way of Great Britain and if hon. gentlemen opposite think that is a mistake we disagree with them. But if at any future time, for any reason, the parliament of Canada should desire to change its policy in that respect, then we take the precaution that the treaty should not stand in the way, and that we should put in the reservation that if at any time in the future it might be deemed expedient to impose the surtax on the goods coming by way of Great Britain we have the right to do so and the treaty will not stand in the way. The only difference between the old treaty and the new on the question of direct shipment is that while the provision in the old treaty was unequal and one-sided and against Canada, it is now reciprocal and as fair to Canada as it is to France. But there is another and broader question involved in this with regard to these negotiators having been over-reached. The least we could ask from my hon. friends is that they should have some regard for the very able negotiators who conducted the previous treaty, and what do we find they provide ? They provided that a certain limited list of Canadian products-some of them important, some of them trifling-should be entitled to the French market. Then they provided that as respects that limited list-canned meats, condensed foods, eels, fish, lobsters, &c.-if as respects the items on that limited list France should at any time grant conces-

sions to other countries, like concessions should come to Canada. That is the application of the favoured nation principle, hut it is applied only to the limited list of articles mentioned in the treaty. France gives Canada the right to send these articles in, and if it should at any time grant to any other country the right to send these articles in on better terms, Canada shall likewise have that right. So far so good. Then turn to the other side. You talk of one-sided agreements and of the negotiators being over-reached. Read the article of the old treaty :
Any commercial advantage granted by Canada to any third power, especially in tariff matters, shall be enjoyed fully by France, Algeria and the French colonies.
Canada was only to get favoured-nation treatment on a small list of articles ; but when you turn to the other side, you find that Canada was bound to give France favoured-nation treatment in any commercial or tariff matter whatever. Not making the conditions reciprocal by limiting them to a number of articles in each case, you were placed in this position, that you were assured of favoured-nation, treatment in France only on a small list of articles, while you agreed to give favoured-nation treatment to France, not on a limited list, but on every article that entered into the commerce of Canada. By the new treaty, Canada gives to France favoured-nation treatment as respects a list of articles mentioned in the treaty, and France gives to Canada favoured-nation treatment as respects a list of articles mentioned in the treaty. The treatment is reciprocal ; the one-sided condition which existed before is swept away.


David Henderson: I had expected that the hon. Minister of Finance would have replied to my criticism with regard to our inability to secure the best treatment'from a steamship company to convey our goods to France, from the fact that we were not in a position to offer any return cargo because of the benefits obtained from this treaty. I thought that was what the hon. minister would reply to ; but instead of that he has followed the old custom of beating around the bush and getting a thousand miles away from the point in order to draw a red herring across the trail. I congratulate the hon. gentleman upon his adroitness ; perhaps he has no equal in this House in meeting an argument in that way. But I would like to know whether the Minister of Marine, when he negotiates with a steamship company, will be likely to obtain accommodation on as favourable terms as he would have done had the treaty compelled France to send her goods to Canada in the same direct way as we are compelled to send our goods to France. That was where I thought the negotiators were somewhat lame. I repeat that if they saw errors In the old treaty, if after some thirteen or fourteen
years they found some things that had been overlooked, they would have been perfectly right in taking advantage of that, and we might reasonably have expected that a much better treaty would be negotiated now. Perhaps France, having had a small taste of the advantage of reciprocity with Canada, would have been willing to concede something that she did not concede before. I notice that the Minister of Finance was very particular to say that for the present there was no intention of Canada imposing a surtax, although Canada had reserved the right to do so. Why did he use the words for the present ? Was it because he had in contemplation the imposition of a surtax at some time in the future ? I am not going to say that he would make a mistake, because I do not feel that I would be justified in making such a suggestion to him with his large experience. On our goods going into France we get the advantage of the minimum tariff, but we only get it on a restric-ed list, and to get it we have to send out-goods direct and pay a large sum of money to get them in ; or, if we send them via England, we can only do so under special restrictions. The minister may have it in contemplation to say to the French people, we will impose a surtax unless you remove these restrictions or unless you remove-your surtaxe d'entrepot,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It seems to me that the treaty stands in this position. We want some advantages in the French market ; the French people want some advantages in our market. They say to us, you can have the same advantage in our market that we have in yours, providing you pay a subsidy to get your goods sent to France ; but there is no obligation resting on us to pay any consideration in order to get the advantages of your market. The arrangement seems to be jug-handled in its nature all through. France has the single advantage of a monopoly. We have to pay for the advantage of getting into their market, whereas they do not pay for the advantage of getting into ours.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is it not possible that the French, in shipping to Canada, having the advantage of ten or twelve competing lines to England, which we have not, may obtain such reductions of freight on this direct line through that competition, and may recoup themselves completely for the sacrifices they have made by the tariff concessions in the treaty itself.


Mr.   BRODETJR@: If France has several lines of steamships, it is because the Frencli government spend a good deal more money than we do in the way of subsidies. It has been suggested several times that this is going to entail an expenditure of $200,000 and that"besides we are going to lose $400,000 of revenue. I thought this $400,000 was going to be a reduction of taxation to the

people of this country, so that instead of losing, we are going 'to gain $200,000.


Robert Laird Borden: If that is a failway of looking at it, the minister could secure the country still greater advantages by removing the taxes from all goods entering into Canada from France; that would be the logical conclusion of his argument. The observations made by gentlemen on this side of the House point strongly to the necessity of having some proper control of the rates. The rates on goods coming from France to Canada will be regulated by the competition of a dozen steamship lines. It is not correct, as the minister says, that this treaty provides that goods shipped from France via Great Britain shall come to Canada without any surtax. The provision is simply that goods may come via any country enjoying the intermediate or preferential tariff; there is no direct reference to Great Britain. If Italy, or Germany, or Norway or any other country were granted the advantages of the intermediate tariff, the same advantages in the way of shipment would accrue to that country as accrue at the present time to Great Britain. It is not strictly accurate therefore to put it in the way the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) did just now. But if you have a dozen lines from the British Isles to Canada competing with the one direct line now subsidized, that must affect the freight rates from France to Canada. If on the other hand you have only one direct line from Canada to France which can carry goods enjoying the benefit of the minimum tariff, you will not have that competition, and the result might be that shippers from France to Canada would enjoy lower freight rates on this line than shippers from Canada to France. That seems to emphasize the necessity for some control over the rates, and I trust the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, or whoever has to do with this contract, will bear that in mind.
Mr. BR01?EUR. There is no doubt very good reason why we should try and get some control over the rates and it is the intention of the government to ask for it.


Robert Laird Borden: The government are not in the same position with regard to this as the Minister of Finance says they were in with regard to France. They have the control of the situation pretty well in their own hands because they are riot obliged to enter into any contract without reserving that right. There is no provision in this Bill for bringing the contract down and placing it on the table. There should be a provision that all these subsidy contracts should be laid on the table immediately after the opening of the following session.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The contracts are always brought down in the departmental re-Mr. BRODEUR. '
port. At page 113 of the report of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in the supplement, there is the contract with the A1 lan Line concerning this same service.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept the statement that these contracts have been brought down in recent years, but I do not think that practice has always prevailed, because I have had to move for them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is correct. It is only in the last three or four years that such contracts are brought down.


Robert Laird Borden: If we have the minister's assurance that that is to be the invariable practice of the department in future, I would not insist on our making a general provision to that effect.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am informed by the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce that it is the intention to give synopses of contracts in all the departmental reports as is done in the last report.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: To give effect to this treaty, it would be absolutely necessary for us to have adequate commercial representation in France. We are competing with other nations, particularly the Americans, and the Americans have in France a consular staff which gives them an immense advantage over us. Our representation in that respect is not at all what it should be, but I shall defer what I have to say on that subject until we come to consider the remuneration of our agents in France at present.


William Stevens Fielding: We have at present in France a commercial agent, who is a most excellent and able officer. If this treaty realizes the hopes many of us have for an extension of trade, it would be probably desirable that our agency should be strengthened. Mr. Poindron, I have found very capable and energetic. He is our only commercial agent. We have gentlemen representing us connected with other branches.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to refer to the gentleman we have had as our representative in France many years because I do not suppose he is much concerned with our commercial relations, nor have I any special complaint against Mr. Poindron, who is a diligent man. But I think the time has arrived when we should have Canadians, men who had a commercial training in this country, who have much experience, and would be better able to represent us than men like Mr. Poindron, who have not been brought up in this country. Mr. Poindron is a very intelligent man and no doubt has brought a good deal of diligence to bear on his work, but he is a Frenchman, who has only sojourned in our country a little time, and even with the best natural ability it is impossible that he should be able to advance our interests as much as if he had been brought up and trained in this

country. Besides alone he is not able, with all the skill one is prepared to give him, to do the work that has to be done there. Take our American neighbours, I suppose they have in France at least 200 consuls, and their consular service is pretty effective all over the world. Those men are busy year in and year out- pushing American* commerce. We have just concluded a treaty from which we may expect some results.' We are going to subsidize a direct line to France, we shall have to compete with other nations, and we shall be handicapped in having only one agent and he a native born Frenchman, who probably has other occupations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, he devotes all his time to this.
which they are to be introduced. Look at the example of the manufacturing concerns of this country ; the Massey-Harris concern, for instance, sends to Europe a native Canadian as its representative. This is a man familiar with the goods and the conditions of manufacture. He establishes agencies in France, Germany, Russia and other countries without difficulty. The Noxon firm does the same. They sent a young man from Canada who established agencies in France, Germany, England, Scotland and many other countries, and was regarded as a much more suitable agent for this purpose than any native of the countries to which he went. If individual manufacturers can make a success of this policy, why could not the country do the same ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not think that the struggle, under those circumstances, is at all equal. We shall have to organize something better if we expect to obtain satisfactory results. However I do not want to detain the committee longer just now on this point as a better opportunity will occur later.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not dissent from the idea that, after concluding a treaty, we should make some vigorous efforts to develop trade, and I rather expect that such effort will be necessary. But as regards employing Canadians to do business for us in France, while one's first thought is to approve of that suggestion and give preference to our own, on the other hand if a Canadian goes to a strange country, without knowledge of it, he may find himself at a disadvantage. While as a rule we shall find it advantageous to appoint Canadians,
I should imagine that the fact that Mr. Poindron combines a certain amount of knowledge of Canada, having resided here some years, with his knowledge of France as a native of that country and his consequent familiarity with French affairs and conditions, would indicate that he is rather better fitted to do our work in that country than one whose chief quality is that he is a native Canadian. I think that if we could find the happy combination of a native Canadian, who, at the same time, has a knowledge of the country in which he is to work, that would be best. However, I accept in the spirit in which it is given the suggestion made that we need a vigorous and energetic representation in France, and that, so far as the trade of the world is concerned, we should have in view the appointment of vigorous agents wherever trade can be obtained.


Mr. BERGERON.: What is Mr. Poin-dron's salary ?	.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is $3,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The man who understands the lines to be introduced has an advantage over a native of the country into


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: As to Mr. Poindron, he was appointed when he was in Canada. He resided in Canada for some years and was engaged in the development of trade between Canada and France. I think he endeavoured to have a line of steamships put on the route between Canada and France.
I do not know whether he was successful or not-I think probably he was not successful, for, as I explained the other night, the establishment of this steamship line at that time was a very difficult proposition. In the course of his work he became well acquainted with the requirements of trade in France and the opportunities there for the sale of Canadian goods. There was no man in Canada, probably, who knew better the trade between the two countries than did Mr. Poindron when he was appointed. I do not know whether he became a British subject or not, but I know he lived in Canada for several years and was appointed to his present position from here. I think it not unlikely that he is and always has been a French citizen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The knowledge of the .trade acquired by one resident here would be greater


William Stevens Fielding: Mr. Poindron was a resident of Canada for several years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: -and more valuable in the development of trade in the various lines of manufacture than that of one familiar with the conditions of commerce in the country in which he is to work. If he has a knowledge of trade conditions in th;s country, it will be much more easy for him to learn the trade conditions in the country with which we are to trade than it would be for one from that country, by residing in Canada for a time, to learn the conditions here.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: I know Mr. Poindron very well, and, if we are to choose a man who is not a Canadian, I do not think the government could have a better man in this position. He is a very industrious man.

and, as he resided in Canada for some years, he acquired, I believe, as good a knowledge of Canadian affairs as any native Canadians possess. He acted for the government of France in many parts of the world before coming to Canada. I , believe he was in China, in Japan, and in many European countries. I am not sure that, with the salary afforded him, Mr. Poindron could be expected to do the work. I do not suppose that lie stays in his office. I would like to believe that he goes about, finds out where there are opportunities for Canadian trade and seeks to establish that trade. Unless his expenses are paid, or unless he has an account for contingencies, I do not see how he could do much good. You could not find a better man, but he must have opportunities to do his work properly. Otherwise, no matter who may be our agent the money is simply thrown away. I suppose the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Bro-deur) saw Mr. Poindron when in Paris. X take it that Mr. Poindron has an office and a staff, or at least has help so that, in case he finds it in the interest of the service to travel, he may be free to do so. If due opportunity is not given to our agent to do the work for which he is appointed, I would be opposed to the whole thing.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The salary as I have stated, is $3,000 a year, which is a fair salary considering the expense of living in that country. Mr. Poindron's office is provided with an office by the Department of Trade and Commerce, and he has a clerk who is paid by the department. For travelling expenses, he is allowed $50 a month. On the whole, I think the salary paid is a very good one.
Mr. MONK!. As the newspapers, particularly in Montreal, and more particularly the organ of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), are liable to make erroneous reports, I would not like to say anything that could be interpreted as against Mr. Poindron, for I know him and know that he is' a competent man. But look at the difference. The American government has in every important city in France, one of its own men, a wideawake, active man- of business, as consul, who pushes for business for all he is worth. There are very few instances in the countries of Europe- and I travelled there a good deal in former years-in which the American government is represented by one who is not an American citizen. On the contrary Canada has in France one man, Mr. Poindron. On principle, as he is our only agent, I think there is grave reason why we should have a better representative in a man who is of our own nation and our own allegiance, a man who, in case of any doubt, would naturally incline to take the part of his own Mr. BERGERON.
country rather than that of the country to which he is a native and to which he owes allegiance. What is our whole representation in France ? We have Mr. Poindron. Then we have as our immigration agent Mr. Wiallard, at a small salary. And, latterly, we have sent a young lawyer, Mr. Geoffrion, a very estimable young man, who I suppose, also represents the Immigration Department. And this is all we have. And this at the conclusion of a treaty from which it is said we are to expect great results, and when we are to have a direct line of steamships which is to cost us a great deal of money. This development of trade is a question which deserves our best attention, and, when we come to look into it at a later day, I hope to have some observations to make.


William Stevens Fielding: I may say to my hon. friend that I sympathize heartily with his views with regard to the position of our representatives in Paris. What struck me, and my colleague also, when we were over there was that our offices, while well located perhaps for some purposes, were not as well placed as they might be, and we devoted some time in trying to obtain a building on one of the more public avenues, even though it should cost considerable money. We had negotiations with a view of taking a lease of a building in a commanding position where the offices of our French representatives might be consolidated. At present Mr. Fabre and those associated with him are in one part of the city, while Mr. Poindron's office is in the commercial centre, near the Bourse. We thought it desirable to consolidate these offices and we wished to get a more prominent place, though it should cost us a little more money. We thought we had satisfactory negotiations to that end on one of the grand boulevards. Unfortunately, a rival concern cropped up, and notwithstanding all we were disposed to do, they outbid us and we lost the opportunity. We afterwards instructed our representatives to try and look for a more satisfactory site, but up to the present moment we have not been successful. I think that Paris is one of the great show places of the world, and if the offices of Canada were located in a more central place it would probably bring us an indirect return and would be well worth while spending a little more money. I agree that we need to make a more vigorous and energetic campaign for Canada in France.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Since my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has mentioned the name of Mr. Geoffrion. what is Mr. Geoffrion's occupation in Paris, what is his salary, and what department does he belong to?


Frank Oliver: He belongs to the Interior Department; I cannot say at the moment what his salary is.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think it is $2,000.


Joseph Gédéon Horace Bergeron: Will my hon. friend find out and let us know later on? My information is that he is getting $4,000 a year.


Frank Oliver: His salary cannot be more than $2,500, if it is that.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.



IMMIGRATION ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 135) to amend the Immigration Act-Mr. Oliver-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
Robert Laird Borden: We have not had much explanation with regard to the object of this proposed legislation. Perhaps the minister will take this opportunity of giving it.


Frank Oliver: The purpose of this amendment is to make further provision in regard to the exclusion of immigrants. The Act as it stands contains provisions for the protection of immigrants and also for the exclusion and deportation of immigrants. An immigrant arriving at a Canadian port, if considered to be undesirable according to the terms of our immigration law, may be excluded at that port, and if excluded under the terms of the law the transportation company which brought him to the Canadian port must take him back to the port from which he sailed, and the country in which that port is situated must receive him back, because until he has officially landed in Canada he is still to all intents and purposes a resident of the country from which he sails. If an undesirable comes into Canada and it becomes necessary or desirable to deport him, we call upon the steamship company which brought him to Canada to take him back to the port from which he sailed. But if he is not a citizen of the country in which that port is situated, that country does not need to receive him back, and it is not possible for the steamship company to carry out our order of deportation. We were, therefore, in the position of having possibly to deal with numbers of people whom it might be desirable to deport, and yet because of their not having sailed from the country of their citizenship, or not having come from that country by a ticket upon which we could hold the transportation company responsible to take them back to the country of their citizenship, we were not in a position to deport them. In order then that the intent of the immigration law might be carried out and made effective in regard to the exclusion of undesirables, it was provided by a regulation passed on the 8th of January last that immigrants arriving from a country other than that of their citizenship might under certain circumstances be excluded. This regulation was put in force and was applied to the
arrivals of Asiatics on the Pacific coast, in one instance, to Japanese coming from the Sandwich islands, and in another case to Hindus coming from Hong Kong. There is a large Japanese population in the Sandwich islands who, for industrial or commercial reasons, are looking for another field of settlement. These people, having left the country of their citizenship, having become residents of the Sandwich islands, which are dependencies of the United States, and then having decided to come to Canada, were not under the jurisdiction of the country of their citizenship. If we had reason to order their deportation and to order the steamship company to take them back into the Sandwich islands, the United States government could refuse to receive them. They were then in the position in which they were when they came from the Sandwich islands and we practically hand to let them land. The same condition prevailed in regard to the movement from Hong Kong. Large numbers of Hindus who have left India and settled in Hong ICong, for one reason or another desired to settle in Canada. The question, in fact, came up in the first place, because of our finding it desirable to deport a number of these Hindus who had landed in Vancouver. They were subject to the deportation clauses of the Immigration Act, but when we undertook to deport them the government of Hong Kong refused to receive them because they were not citizens of that dependency and they were simply left on our hands. The regulation of the 8th of January, passed to meet that case, was put in force and was applied to the arrivals from the Sandwich islands and from other regions in the Pacific. It was in March that the large arrivals of Hindus from Hong Kong took place. The regulation was applied to these people, legal proceedings were taken by the transportation company to set aside the regulation, and it was set aside by the courts of British Columbia as not having been in proper form. The point taken was that while the Governor in Council had the right to exclude, he had not the right to delegate that power of exclusion to the Minister of the Interior as had been done by the terms of the regulation ; therefore, the regulation was declared to be of non-effect and these people had to be permitted to land. We passed the regulation again so as to conform with the decision of the court and it is now in force, but we believe that this question is of such importance in the administration of our immigration law that it should be embodied in the law itself, and should not be dependent upon a regulation. Therefore the section which is contained in the Bill was drafted and is brought before the House for its approval. I might say that since the Bill was drafted some exception has been taken to the use of a certain word

in the latter part of the clause and it has been thought advisable to redraft the latter part of the section. I have an amendment here which I desire to propose and which has been approved by the Department of Justice. I would move :
That all the words after the word ' who ' in the fourth line be struck out and that the following be inserted in lieu thereof: 'have come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are natives or citizens and upon through tickets purchased in such country.'


Mr. HAGGART.: The object of the Bill is to extradite Hindus whose case is not otherwise covered by the regulations from British Columbia to the place of their origin. These Hindus, as the hon. gentleman has mentioned, are British subjects coming from either- India or Hong Kong. Have we the power to extradite them for any other reason than for quarantine purposes ?


Frank Oliver: This provision is for the purpose of saving us the trouble of extraditing them. It is to enable us to exclude them under certain conditions.


John Graham Haggart: Can you for any other-purpose than that of quarantine exclude a British subject from coming into the country ?


Frank Oliver: That is a matter that I am hardly in a position to answer, but inasmuch as the immigration law has been on the statute-book since- the session of 1906 and has been applied to a very large number of cases not only in excluding, or deporting, or extraditing, which is the word that my hon. friend uses, and has never been called in question, I presume that we have the necessary authority.


John Graham Haggart: I doubt it.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend suggested that this provision was made especially to apply to Hindus. That is incorrect. It applies to all people. I instanced the case of the Hindus as being one in which it was necessary and desirable to apply the provision.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not quite understand the necessity of the legislation. The law as it stands at present is as follows :
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order, whenever he considers it necessary or expedient, prohibit the landing in Canada of any specified class of immigrants of which due notice shall be given to the transportation company.
The Governor in council, by order made on the 8th of January, 1908, undertook to delegate to the Minister of the Interior the power which was conferred on the Governor in Council by the statute which I have Mr. OLIVER.
just read. The operative words of the order in council are as follows :
The Governor in Council is pleased to order, and it is hereby ordered, that whenever, in the opinion of the Minister of the Interior, the condition of the labour market in Canada is such as to make the application of section 20 of the Immigration Act desirable, or, whenever, in the opinion of the Minister of the Interior, other conditions exist which, in a special degree render necessary the application of sections 26 to 30 inclusive of the said Act, immigrants may be prohibited from landing or coming into Canada unless they come from the country of their birth or citizenship by a continuous journey and on through tickets purchased before leaving the country of their birth or citizenship.
Then the matter came before Mr. Justice Clements, of British Columbia, upon proceedings in habeas corpus, and Mr. Justice Clements did not set aside the order in council -of course he could not do that-but he declared that the order iu council was not valid inasmuch as the Privy Council had seen fit to delegate to the Minister of the Interior a power which could only be exercised by the Governor in Council himself. And so the men, as I understand, were released on habeas corpus. I do not observe, nor have I heard from the Minister of the Interior that there has been any difficulty of such a character as would render this legislation necessary. If it is necessary well and good, but I have not so far been able to ascertain what the necessity is. The necessity could only arise if the words, ' any specified class of immigrants,' do not include the conditions which are provided for in this Bill. No such argument has been made so far as I am aware, and no such decision has been given, and therefore I am not yet able to understand the necessity for the legislation. In other words there would have been no difficulty at air in the court, so far as we know, if the Governor in Council had made the order in the proper way instead of delegating the subject to the Minister of the Interior. At the present time the Governor in Council has passed the necessary order and the matter seems to be provided for in that way. Why is it then that we are asked to pass this legislation ? I am not speaking by way of criticism, but entirely for the purpose of information.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reason for the legislation as I understand it is this : under the Immigration Act we have power to exclude and to deport certain immigrants who do not come up to a certain standard either physically, intellectually or morally, and whom we deem to be unworthy of Canadian citizenship. We have power to deport Hindus or any one else if we are of opinion that they come within any of the classes I have referred to. But suppose a Hindu who was physically or morally unfit came from Hong Kong but not from India, we

could exclude him or deport him. We can send him back on the steamship which has brought him and the steamer would take him to Hong Kong but the Hong Kong authorities would say: That man does not belong to us and we will not receive him. It is to obviate this that the law makes it another cause of exclusion if the man does not come direct from the land of his origin on a through ticket. We are creating another cause of exclusion in addition to the causes I have just mentioned, and this being made a cause of exclusion the transportation company understands it and they bring such a man here at their own risk and we will have the power to compel the company to take that man back.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not see how it will assist the situation if that is the real object of the statute.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the object as I understand it.


Robert Laird Borden: Suppose an idiot or a person afflicted with a loathsome disease is taken on board at Hong Kong, you can now refuse him permission to land without this proposed statute. This Bill merely provides another reason on account of which he cannot land and you send him back in this case just as you did before. What is the advantage of it ?


Frank Oliver: As long as we are aware that he is subject to the exclusion conditions of the Act at the port of landing we can exclude him as matters stand at present and there is no difficulty. But suppose we are not aware of this and we allow him to actually land and afterwards we find he is physically or mentally tainted, or financially unable to provide for his own support, any of these are causes for exclusion or deportation. For instance, a perfectly healthy Hindu leaves India, he comes to Hong Kong, finds matters do not suit him there, and he decides to come to British Columbia. He lands in British Columbia a perfectly healthy man mentally and physically, and we permit him to land but conditions are such that he lias no money, that he cannot get any work, and he becomes a public charge; he is subject to deportation under the terms of our immigration law, but if we undertake to deport him, under the terms of the law we arrest him, we compel the steamship company to take him on board, the steamship company takes him to Hong Kong and the Hong Kong government says: He does not belong to us, we will not admit him to our country and we will not allow him to land in Hong Kong. The only recourse in that case is that he. must be brought back to Canada and allowed to remain in Canada. Under such circumstances we cannot enforce our own law in regard to our own country.


Robert Laird Borden: Does the minister mean that this statute is intended to apply to persons who have landed in Canada ?


Frank Oliver: People who will land in Canada after the statute is passed.


Robert Laird Borden: That is not the reading of the statute at all. The reading of the statute is this: The Governor in Council may prohibit the landing in Canada. It does not deal with persons who having landed in Canada are found to be subject to such disabilities as would make it advisable to deport him. This statute is intended to prohibit certain persons from landing in Canada. I am sincerely trying to find out what good purpose the statute is intended to serve.


Frank Oliver: I am trying to explain it. I try to tell my hon. friend how the case arises which makes it necessary for us to adopt the principle contained in the Bill. I have shown that under the terms of our Act as it stands to-day we are not able to protect ourselves as it was intended that we should protect ourselves. If this Act is passed, the man who goes on board a ship at Hong Kong, with a ticket bought at Hong Kong, if he is not a citizen of Hong Kong, can be prevented from landing in Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: The man who goes on board the steamer at Hong Kong may belong to one of two classes-he may be a perfectly good citizen, unexceptionable in every way, or he may be a person who is impecunious or idiotic or suffering from some disease on account of which we should exclude him. Is this intended to apply to one or to both of these classes. If only to one, to which one?


Frank Oliver: It is intended to apply to all classes.


Robert Laird Borden: Why is it intended to apply to a man who would be a perfectly good citizen of this country?


Frank Oliver: Because we want to be in a position to protect ourselves against the man who will not be a good citizen of the country-not necessarily because of any inherent defect in himself, but because of conditions which may exist, and which do not admit of his being able to make a living in Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Within the last couple of weeks a German went on board a vessel at New Zealand and went to Vancouver; but he was not allowed to land because he did not come from the country of his origin. There was no contention that he was not a good citizen; but he was excluded, and was forced to go to the United States.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Is it the intention by this Bill to exclude from this coun-

try every person who does not come from the country of his origin? If so, it seems to me that you will get into a lot of trouble. Another thing: I notice that by the regulation people coming from Europe must come by way of Portland or direct to a Canadian port.


Frank Oliver: No, they may come through any port. Cases of hardship have arisen under the application of the regulation, because our officers have not thoroughly understood how we desired to apply it. But there is no difficulty whatever in regard to people who are coming to Canada through another country or by various lines of conveyance. It is quite customary for a man, say at a point in Central Europe, to buy a through ticket from that point to Canada. It matters not through how many countries he passes, we receive him. As he has a ticket from the country of his citizenship, we can compel the transportation company to take him back there, which we could not do if he had not that ticket.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The man I refer to was not a naturalized citizen of New Zealand, but he was a German who had lived there for several years. He was excluded because he did not come direct from Germany.


Mr. MACPHERSON.: I think the object of the amendment brought in by the minister is quite plain.


Mr. SAM. HUGHES.: To exclude Hindus, that is all.


Robert George Macpherson: Yes, to exclude Hindus and ail kinds of Asiatics, and all kinds of undesirable people.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will it not exclude desirable classes as well?


Robert George Macpherson: Possibly if we gain in one respect we may suffer in another. In the case the hon. gentleman speaks of, I fancy the good sense of the immigration officer would allow the German to come in.


Mr. FOWLER.: That is giving a good deal of latitude to the immigration officer.


Robert George Macpherson: If I or my hon. friend were an immigration officer, we would use the good sense the Lord has given us. We thought we had the positive power to exclude Orientals coming from India via Hong Kong.


Samuel Hughes: What about the Japanese?


Robert George Macpherson: The arrangement entered into between Japan and Canada is working very well; we have no more Japanese coming into the country. That matter has been satisfactorily arranged-perhaps not as radically as some of ns would have Mr. U. WILSON.
liked to have had it arranged, but it is working well. Just as the Japanese were making Hawaii a bridge, so the Hindus have been making Hong Kong a bridge. There are a considerable number of Hindu policemen in Hong Kong; and these men, while a good looking Jot, are the most objectionable class of people we can get into our country. A good many of them while in Hong Kong lived on prostitution. The prostitutes of Hong Kong, the greatest shipping port in the world, stood in with them, and divided up their profits with them.


Samuel Hughes: There must have been a large body of police.


Robert George Macpherson: Yes.
Mr. SAJI, HUGHES. How many thousands?


Robert George Macpherson: I speak of the first people who came. They are a most objectionable and undesirable class. The Hindus themselves do not want them. This clause will absolutely prohibit this class of people coming to our shores. It is purely and simply a restriction on Asiatics. The Japanese cannot come in by the Sandwich Islands or by Mexico. There has been a good deal of talk about these men having been British soldiers and wearing medals on their breasts. The men who managed to get over the order in council and furnish them with tickets purporting that they came from Calcutta, would be able to get silver medals for them without any trouble. I know very well that nine-tenths of them never saw any active service in India for the British empire. I think this clause is absolutely necessary if we are going to succeed in keeping these very undesirable people out of the country.


George William Fowler: I would like to ask the minister if it is not a fact that a great deal of so-called American immigration consists of men from Scandinavia who remain a few years in the United States and then cross over to Canada?


Mr. WILBERT McINTYRE.: They became citizens.


George William Fowler: Not necessarily, unless they took the oath of allegiance.


Wilbert McIntyre: They generally do.


George William Fowler: I venture to say that a good many do not.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: To return to the point raised a few moments ago by the leader of the opposition, what is the object of this legislation? Is it to add to the cases of exclusion those who come from somewhere else than their native country? At present we have a certain list of cases of exclusion and probably this Bill is intended to add to them. The Bill provides that:

30. The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order, whenever he considers it necessary or expedient, prohibit the landing in Canada of any specified class of immigrants any immigrants who being natives or citizens of any specified country have come to Canada otherwise than by a continuous journey from that country on through tickets purchased there.
As I understand the present law, the fact that an English immigrant comes here from France is not a cause of exclusion, but it may be a cause for exclusion under this Bill. All that is required is a proclamation of the Governor in Council.
.Mr- GALLIHER. As I understand it the difference is this : Take a Hindu coming from Hong Kong to Vancouver, he may be Vancouver he will be allowed to land at all. The steamship company will have to take him back. But if he is a desirable immigrant and comes direct from India to \ ancouver be will be allowed to land though he may be deported later should he become one of the class subject to deportation. Then you can compel the steamship company to take him back to his own country and his own country is bound to receive him. You are consequently not in the position you would be in when deporting the same man who came from Hong Kong to Vancouver, because Hong Ivong not being his native country, it would not be bound to take him back.


Robert Laird Borden: We may be going much further than the government intend. I am not going to discuss the question of Hindus or Japanese for the moment. It will be possible under this to have Hindus, British subjects from Hong Kong, deported or not permitted to land, and Japanese direct from Japan permitted to land. That is what it means if it means anything. It may be most desirable, and no doubt it is, to limit the immigration of certain classes, but it is necessary to see that we are not going too far. One hon. gentleman suggests that the enforcement or non-enforcement shall be left to the discretion of the immigration officers. I do not think that is very desirable.


Robert George Macpherson: I do not think I suggested that.


Robert Laird Borden: I accept my hon. friend's assurance in that regard. But if such a suggestion has been made, I would be prepared to repudiate it. You cannot make laws and then invite your own officers to wilfully and knowingly break them. If this law is to be enacted, we must see that it is enforced in every part of Canada. What then will be the result? I agree with my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that it distinctly proposes to add an additional cause of exclusion at the discretion of the Governor in Council. That is to say. any citizen coming from any country other than that of his birth or citizenship shall not
be allowed to land, although he may be in every other possible respect a most desirable citizen. You are aiming at a certain object, but you are accomplishing a good deal more than you aim at. Suppose Scandinavians go into the United States and do not become American citizens, and then propose to come and settle in this country, they are excluded by this order in council apparently because they do not come direct from the land of their birth or citizenship. Suppose these men have lived in the British isles a number of years and then come to Canada, they cannot be permitted to land under this order in council for the same reason. Germans coming here from the British islands or the United States would be exactly in the same category. Therefore, you are proposing a very drastic, comprehensive and far reaching amendment to our immigration laws. Your amendment may accomplish a certain purpose which you have in mind, but It may also accomplish some others you have not in mind.


Samuel Hughes: This is evidently intended to get at the transportation companies.


An hon. MEMBER.: No.


Samuel Hughes: Take the case of a Hindu who comes here from Hong Kong, you may send him back on the steamer and he will not be allowed to land at Hong Kong. I do not think this will help the matter. Why does the hon. minister not bring in a law covering that aspect of the case? This will exclude any man coming from any country other than that of his birth or adoption. Personally I would much prefer a Hindu who has served the empire in the armies of Great Britain to a galvanized Yankee who has been an anarchist in his own land and has come to the United States where he has done his best to disrupt that republic, and who, if he crosses over to Canada. seeks in many instances to disrupt the established laws of the Dominion. I must say that a Hindu who has served in the British army and has had the discipline of a soldier is much more likely to make a good citizen of Canada, much more likely to upbuild the welfare, morality and dignity of this country than many of the class of animals who are imported


An hon. MEMBER.: Order.


Samuel Hughes: No 'order' about it. Many of these are not worthy the name of human beings. But these people are admitted, while soldiers who have served in the British army are excluded, not allowed to land and turned adrift. I move in amendment the following :-
Always excepting such immigrants as have served in the regular or auxiliary forces of the empire under the British flag.


John Graham Haggart: I have not yet had a clear explanation from the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) or the Minister of the

Interior (Mr. Oliver) as to the effect of this proposed law. I may be wrong in my law, but I stated-and I have seen no reason yet to change my opinion-that this parliament cannot deprive a British subject of his allegiance or of his right to land in this country except for certain causes. He must not be excluded under the quarantine laws-that is he must not be diseased, idiotic or subject to lunacy:	Nor must he be
a criminal. Nor must he be an indigent person-our right in this case is similar to that exercised under the poor law of Great Britain of removing people from one parish to another. As I understand the Prime Minister, the law applies only to these classes, but, according to the Minister of the Interior, it goes further. Under the principle stated by the Minister of the Interior, this parliament could exclude any one. It is proposed that the Hindus shall be excluded, not because they are Hindus ; their crime consists in not coming direct from Hindustan, but in landing in a British colony on the way. I may have old-fashioned ideas as to the power of this country to deprive a British subject of his allegiance or of his rights as a British subject. I do not think that this parliament can do either.


Robert George Macpherson: How about Australia ?


John Graham Haggart: I do not care about Australia. I do not know about the Australian law, though it may be such as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Macpberson) says. But my ground is that we cannot deprive a British subject of his allegiance or of his right as a British subject, provided lie is not a criminal, is not physically or mentally diseased and has money to pay his way.


Robert George Macpherson: Does not the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart) think that the Canadian parliament is paramount in tliese matters ? Has it not the highest possible powers within its jurisdiction ?


John Graham Haggart: That is the very ground I take-that the power is not vested in this parliament, but that this is one of the reserve powers under the British North America Act. I may be wrong in my law. But, suppose we had the power that is claimed, is it judicious or right for us to legislate against British subjects in any other part of the empire ? Is it in the interest of this country or of the empire as a whole ? While it is right that we should protect ourselves against immigration tnat Is detrimental to the interests of the country, when a man is a good subject of the empire in one part of it, he has the right to all the privileges as a subject of the empire on landing in this country.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think on reflection, the hon. gentleman (Mr. Haggart)) will agree with me that he has car-Mr. HAGGART.	;
ried a principle which is very good in itself a little too far. He says that we have not the power to close the door of this country against a British subject except for purposes of quarantine. Now we have as much power over British subjects coming from across the sea as we have over those in this country. At the present time, if a man is insane, even though a British subject, we have the right to put him in con-iinemeflt.


John Graham Haggart: I admitted that principle-that idiots, lunatics, criminals and paupers might be excluded. I said that the common law of England provided for that.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend stated that we had no power to exclude men except for purpose of quarantine.


John Graham Haggart: I went further.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman will see that we have the power to exclude those who are physically tainted, section 28 of the Immigration Act provides :
Nq person shall be permitted to land in Canada who is a pauper, or destitute, a professional beggar, or vagrant, or who is likely to become a public charge

I think the hon. gentleman will agree to prevent the landing of persons of these classes. Very well. The Act goes on to say :
-and any person landed in Canada who, within two years thereafter, has become a charge upon the public funds, whether municipal, provincial or federal, or an inmate of, or a charge upon, any charitable institution, may be deported and returned to tlie^port or place whence he came or sailed for Canada.
Does the hon. gentleman admit that we have that power ?


John Graham Haggart: Yes.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman admits that we can exclude paupers, criminals, and those physically tainted or mentally unsound, whether they be British subjects or not. Well, if we exercise this power, why do we exercise it ? For our protection. ' The object of this Bill, as it has been stated, and as I tried to state it, is to create another cause of exclusion as recognized by the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) and the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) has given the reason for creating this new clause of exclusion. What is it 1 He says : The power vested in me is to prevent the entry of persons who are physically tainted, mentally unsound, criminals or paupers, and to send them back whence they come : but the power given me is nugatory unless the transportation company that brings such a person to'this country can take him to the place from which he came. The transpor-

tation company has taken, this immigrant on at Hong Kong. But, when he is returned, the authorities at Hong Kong refuse to receive him, and he is.Jeft between the two places like Mahomet's coffin hanging between heaven and earth. So, the Minister of the Interior seeks power to make effective the power that is given him. So far we understand each other. There is another question which the leader of the opposition has suggested, and that is whether we might not be going too far in this legislation, and whether we might not exclude another class of immigrants who ought to be admitted. That is a serious consideration. I do not know whether the Minister of the Interior has given his attention to it, but at all events it is a point worthy of consideration.


Mr. GALLIHER.: Touching the last point referred to by the Prime Minister, I will state the situation. As we all know, British Columbia is the province that has suffered most by the influx of Oriental immigrants. It is not desirable in the interest of British Columbia or in the interest of Canada that a class of people who cannot assimilate with any part of our own inhabitants should be permitted to come in without restriction. That I think ought to be admitted by every Canadian. Now what was the case in British Columbia before the order in council was passed ? We found Japanese agents on the one hand and Hindu agents on the other, practically starting a syndicate for the purpose of flooding British Columbia with Orientals- because our province was the objective point of all the immigrants who came from those countries. We find on the one hand the government of Japan saying that if Japanese leave their country and go to Honolulu or any other point, they are beyond the jurisdiction of the Japanese government, it has no control over them. On the other hand, we find the Hindu coming in, not from India but from another point between his native country and British Columbia. Now that had to be got over. I say it was in the interest, not only of British Columbia but of all of Canada, that some measure should be taken by which that immigration should be stopped. Now I want to say that I have hot been satisfied with what has been done, and I would have raised my voice time and again in this House if some means had not been taken to stop this wholesale influx. I do not care if the Hindu is a British subject. He may be a British subject, and have fought the battles of Great Britain on many occasions. He is a soldier and a good soldier, I admit all that; and I have as much respect for a British subject as any other man in this House, and I think I am as good a British subject, too. But I do not think this is imposing a hardship on those British
subjects coming straight from their native country to Canada, and if they do come direct and are desirable in every other respect, they would be allowed to land and become citizens of our country. But these men have been coming from Hong Kong, and why do they come ? They come simply at the instigation of these immigration agents who hold every man up who comes in, and levy upon him for bringing him into British Columbia. These men have inaugurated and are carrying out the profession of bringing immigrants into Canada, and reaping a benefit out of them in consequence. I say in all fairness, without wishing to reflect upon the Hindus, that they are not suitable citizens for British Columbia or for any other part of Canada ; they are not suited to the climate or to the work they are called upon to perform.


Samuel Hughes: Won't thev find that out ?


William Alfred Galliher: We dont want thousands of them parading our streets trying to find that out. That is the position we take in British Columbia, and that is the position we will maintain.


Samuel Hughes: And yet you will import Yankee hoodlums who are not even American citizens.


William Alfred Galliher: I am afraid my hon. friend must have suffered severe treatment from a Yankee hoodlum at some time. A point was made by the leader of the opposition and answered by the Prime Minister, that this Act might be made to apply to other classes of immigrants than Orientals. I do not think we need have any serious cause for fear that any considerable number of people will be excluded who come from other countries, under the operation of this Act if it becomes law. I think that is looking ahead for trouble which is not likely to happen. I have looked into the matter carefully, and I do not think that we in Canada need have any great fear that there will be any appreciable number of citizens of the United States, or Germany, or France, or any other country who wish to come in here, and who will be excluded under the provisions of this law. I know of no other way by which we can keep out these undesirable Orientals, and I have thought the matter over a good deal, unless you are going to discriminate against one or more nations. But if you put a provision of this kind in the law, all nations are then treated alike ; and all we ask of any nation, whether they be British subjects, or Frenchmen, or Germans, or any one else, is that they come direct from their own country to Canada. This Act will stop the machine work that has been going on in the case of the Japanese and Hindus, and those are the people we want to stop. As a British Columbian I say, and I main-

tain, that whether they are British subjects or not-and I give them every credit they deserve as British subjects-(British Columbia nor any other part of Canada is not a suitable country for Hindus, and it is not in the interest of British Columbia that they should come in in unrestricted numbers.


George William Fowler: It seems to me that if we have a right to exclude British subjects for any reason whatever, either for mental or physical unsoundness, we have the absolute right to exclude them altogether. It is only a question whether it is judicious or not. ' For my part I sympathize with the evident desire of the Minister of the Interior to work out the problem that confronts him in this matter of immigration to British Columbia. I think it is very important that both sides of the House should address themselves to this matter, and endeavour to work out some way whereby this can be done without doing injustice to persons coming from other countries who may be desirable immigrants for Canada.


Mr. M. S. MCCARTHY.: From the observations that I have been able to make, and from what I have heard living in a province adjoining British Columbia, I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay that the Hindus are not a desirable class of immigrants, and from what we have been able to learn up to the present time that class of immigration should not be encouraged. But I rose to my feet chiefly to refer to a remark of the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) who has said that certain Japanese settlements have been satisfactory. I must apologise for introducing this matter in a discussion of this Bill, but I do it because the Minister of Labour is in his seat. I observe in a despatch from Edmonton, dated March 20, in which it is stated that fifty Japanese families will arrive in Calgary in a few days. I see another paragraph in the same paper, under the heading ' Jap farmers may not come this season, Strong feeling against Asiatics makes promoter hesitate.' Now as I understood the statement in this House of the Minister of Labour on a previous occasion, an arrangement had been come to with the Japanese government under which only students, travellers, and those who came over to Canada to visit their relatives, were to be admitted into this country. I simply mention this for the purpose of ascertaining whether it has come to the attention of the Minister of Labour. I desire to know if there have been 10,000 acres of land sold to Japanese in Southern Alberta, if these families are about to arrive and if there has been that satisfactory settlement to which he referred some - months ago how is it that these people are allowed to come in ?


William Alfred Galliher: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am aware that fifty Japanese families have been advertised to come to Canada shortly. All I know is that an understanding has been arrived at with the Japanese authorities, that the Japanese authorities have lived up to it until the present time, and I feel sure that the arrangement -which has been made will be carried out conscentiously by both sides. From the reports I have received from British Columbia, from the evidence that I receive every day from the representatives of that province in the House, the question seems to be settled, and there is now no influx of Japanese labourers into British Columbia. I have reason to believe that from this day on we will never hear of any such influx as that which took place last fall.


Robert George Macpherson: I think it will take a little more than the subtle remarks of the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) to galvanize into life that Japanese corpse. I do not think we will have the Japanese question as a factor in western Canada from this time on; that is, if Japan lives up to its agreement. I do not want to say anything that my hon. friend takes exception to, but I think that his little attempt to galvanize into life that Japanese corpse, because, as I said, I believe it is a corpse, will fail. I want to take exception to what the hon. member for Victoria and Haliburton (Mr. Hughes) has said. He speaks of the Yankee hoodlums who come over here. I know that the Americans who come to this country make a most desirable class of citizens, and I know that the Hindus or any other class of Asiatics are not wanted in Canada. That line of cleavage is well marked and I think upon that line we can proceed; that is if we are going to keep Canada a white country.


Samuel Hughes: Do you not want to keep it more than a white country ? Do you not want to keep it a decent country?


Robert George Macpherson: Yes, I do not think my hon. friend and I will quarrel about keeping it a decent country.


Samuel Hughes: I would rather have a black gentleman thau a white anarchist.


Robert George Macpherson: I would too; I am not talking against black gentlemen.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a provision in the law against anarchists. _


Samuel Hughes: It is not enforced.


Robert George Macpherson: It would be applied to Americans as well as other people.


Samuel Hughes: I had reference to the galvanized Americans, the riff-raff who live for a short time in the United States and then come into Canada.
. Mr. MACPHERSON. A man who has been guilty of moral turpitude or of any 1 crime is kept out of Canada. We know

very 'well that it Is only the lowest possible caste that leave India and come to our shores. We do not get the Maharajas or the big people of India; they do not leave India on account of their caste.
, An hon. MEMBER. We do not get any nabobs.


Robert George Macpherson: We do not get any * nabobs. Some of them may have been soldiers. A man may be a first-class man and be a soldier and he may not be a first class man and be a soldier. Because a man has been a soldier it is no reason why we should admit him. There is no difficulty in getting a man to be a soldier in India because a Hindu would rather swell around in brass buttons than work. He does not like to work. Even if you are a British subject many times over and wear stripes and be a soldier that does not fit you to become a Canadian citizen of a type such as that to which wre believe Canadian citizens should conform. I think we can never expect to maintain a high standard of nationality unless we keep the strain white. The white man may not be just exactly the kind of man that you would like to invite into your parlour; he may not talk the language or understand it, but his boys and girls are going to school, they are given education along the required lines and they are singing ' God save the King ' and ' Rule Britannia ' within six months after they come here.


John Graham Haggart: Are you not in danger if you draw the colour line ?


Robert George Macpherson: I would rather draw the colour line now than draw it fifty years later. If you read the history of the United States you will find that when they were flooding the southern states with Africans the same arguments were being used then, and it took years of fighting and bloodshed and millions of money to settle that question and it is not settled yet. It is far better for us to settle it now in the way in which we are attempting to settle It.


Maitland Stewart McCarthy: I do not propose that the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Macpherson) will get away with the insinuation that he has made that I am trying to resurrect the discussion on the Japanese question. That is not my intention. On the public Bills and orders there is a resolution of the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Smith) and if I had any desire to discuss the question further I would reserve my remarks until then. I simply pointed out to the hon. Minister of Labour that there appeared in a western paper a report that fifty Japanese proposed to land in Calgary within the next few days, and that 10,000 acres of land had been acquired by these people, together with the further statement that they might not come this season because there was a strong feeling against the promoters of this enterprise and they hesitated to bring them along. If there had been a report that these people 205
were coming to Vancouver instead of to Calgary the hon. member for Vancouver would have been the first man to get up in the House and try to find out if the report were true or not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Since the hon. member for Calgary (Mr. McCarthy) has referred again to the number of Japanese who wish to settle near Calgary as agriculturists, I may say, in order to show that the Japanese authorities are living up to their agreement with Canada, that a few days ago the Canadian Pacific Railway Company applied to the Dominion government in order to ascertain if something like 300 Japanese would be allowed to enter the Dominion and take up land in the Northwest. The Canadian Pacific Railway authorities pointed out that the Japanese government would not object to issuing passports to the intending Japanese immigrants, but the Japanese government had stated that they could not issue passports unless the Dominion government would agree to it. That shows plainly that the Japanese authorities are living up to the agreement arrived at during the month of December last.


Mr. LENNOX.: I want to call the government's attention to another matter in connection with the wording of this section. We have been dealing so far with the meaning of the last part of the clause which says:
Any immigrants who come to Canada otherwise than by continuous journey from the country of which they are natives or citizens and upon through tickets purchased in such country.
As the leader of the opposition has pointed out that appears to provide for the exclusion of a class that was not provided for until now. But the first part of the section provides for something distinct from that, and it says:
The Governor in Council may, by proclamation or order, whenever he considers it necessary or expedient, prohibit the landing in Canada of any specified class of immigrants.
Will the government explain what they expect that part of the clause to cover?


Frank Oliver: That is subsection 1 of the Act as it exists at present.


Haughton Lennox: I know.


Frank Oliver: We are merely repeating that subsection in the new Act and adding to it the provision which is under discussion. The provision referred to has never been applied so far and the fact that we are including it in this amendment does not indicate any immediate intention of applying it. There are very serious objections under ordinary circumstances to the application of an exclusion law against any class of people, and yet there may be occasions arising when it is desirable that such a



power should exist. From the time the Act was first passed we have never seen fit to exercise it, but we think it desirable that the power should still remain. It would only be exercised as a last resort.


Haughton Lennox: We are giving the Governor in Council pretty extensive powers by that provision, although it may or may not be exercised. If you take it in the ordinary sense the provision would cover quite as large a class of persons as are provided for in the concluding words of the section. It is true the section was contained in the former Act, but these words were in addition:
Of which due notice shall he given to the transportation companies.
These words are now omitted. Then we had a subsection in the previous Act which we are now repealing and it is worth while remembering that. Subsection 2 provided that the Governor in Council might make such regulations as are necessary to prohibit the entry into Canada of any greater number of persons from any foreign country than the laws of such country permitted to emigrate to Canada.


Frank Oliver: It is not intended to repeal that.


Haughton Lennox: Under the provision that the Governor in Council may prevent from landing any specified class of immigrants, could the Governor in Council issue a proclamation that Japanese shall not land in Canada?


Frank Oliver: That subsection was considered last year, and in consultation with the Justice Department we were advised that it was not a proper interpretation to put upon the word ' class,' to apply it to a nationality.


Haughton Lennox: I am not prepared to argue that there is not some ground for that limitation or qualification, but at the same time I do not think it is any too clear. If the Governor in Council could make an order preventing the landing of Japanese it would be in direct conflict with the treaty with them. But it certainly would apply to the Governor in Council making a proclamation precluding carpenters or artisans or any specific class. The Minister of the Interior says yes. Then if that is so it would enable you to exclude Japanese artisans, and as I understand it we have not reserved the right in the treaty to exclude any class of Japanese from this country. If that be so we ought not to enact legislation which is inconsistent with the treaty with Japan. It is not that I want to circumscribe or hamper the efforts of the government in any way to preserve British Columbia as a white man's country, for I think that is one of the most desirable things we could aim at, but I am merely calling the attention of the gov-Mr. OLIVER.
eminent to legislation from that point of view.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I can reassure my hon. friend that by the agreement arrived at in the month of December with the Japanese authorities, all labour, skilled and unskilled is excluded. That is to say, they will be allowed to come into Canada only if the Canadian government accede to the request made by them to land in Canada, but they are excluded by the terms of the arrangement. I stated so when the question came up before.


Haughton Lennox: I referred to Japanese labourers or artisans merely for illustration. But suppose for instance under this power to exclude a specified class it should be proposed to exclude Japanese students?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Mr.   IJGNNOX@: If it means anything at all it means that the Governor in Council may exclude a limited class coming from any country, and in that way it could be made to include a class which would bring it in conflict with the treaty relations at present existing between Canada and Japan.


Wilfrid Laurier: The answer to the point of my hon. friend, which was well taken in one sense, is this. Under this order in council the minister can exclude any class. For instance, suppose capitalists should be excluded, how would that work? It could not exclude Japanese capitalists, because they could invoke the treaty, which is superior to a statute of this House, as was decided by the British Columbia court in the case under the Natal Act. It was provided in that Act that any person coming to British Columbia should be subjected to an educational test. Under that provision some Japanese were arrested and convicted; but upon habeas corpus they were released, upon the ground alone that the legislation could not apply to Japanese, because they were protected by the treaty. Tne court did not go beyond that point, and I think this answers the point raised by my hon. friend.


Robert Laird Borden: Does not that place the government in another difficulty with regard to the words just now proposed to be added to the clause? The Prime Minister has stated accurately the effect of that decision, which amounted to this. Although the Natal Act might possibly apply to other nationalities, it could not apply to Japanese, not so much on account of the treaty, but on account of the Act of this parliament confirming the treaty, because provincial legislation with regard to immigration is always subject to legislation enacted by this parliament, and if it is repugnant to legislation enacted by this parliament, it has no effect. Does not the same objection apply to the words proposed

to be added? You propose to give tbe Governor in Council power * to prohibit the landing in Canada of any specified class of immigrants or of any Immigrants who being natives or citizens of any specified country have come to Canada otherwise than by a continuous' journey from that country on through tickets purchased there.' I would be inclined to think that any order in council issued under the authority of this statute would be inoperative so tar as Japanese subjects are concerned, for the very reason now given by the Prime Minister. Under the treaty subjects of the Empire of Japan have exactly the same right to enter, travel and reside in Canada as citizens of Canada have. Then you issue an order in council providing that persons coming under the conditions mentioned may be prohibited. That order in council may be very good as to all the nationalities of the world except the Japanese, but would it not be inoperative so far as they are concerned? Is that the way it is understood by the government?


Wilfrid Laurier: There is something in the point of my hon. friend. Though I think it might be met in another way, it is sufficient to observe at the present time that the Japanese authorities are aware that we attempt to exclude Japanese coming from Honolulu. They do not object to that. The Japanese authorities want their people to be treated in the same way as the people of any other civilized country, aud any law which we pass applying to all nations they do not object to.


Robert Laird Borden: The difficulty appears to have been overlooked by the Prime Minister and by the Minister of Labour, who spoke as if an arrangement with Japan would have the same effect as a treaty. The difficulty is that a Japanese subject coming to Vancouver and Victoria and being confronted by the order in council will simply take the same course as-was taken not long ago-apply to a solicitor and procure writ of habeas corpus, and the court will decide that the order in council has no application to him, and he therefore cannot be deported. It will not be a question between the government of Japan and the government of this country, but a question of the individual rights of the Japanese coming to this country, and invoking the statute of this parliament confirming the treaty.


Mr. RALPH SMITH.: If the legal interpretation given of the effect of the Japanese treaty is correct, then Japanese immigrants to Canada have a privilege which no British subject has. If it is true that no legislation of this House can supersede the terms of the treaty, then there is absolutely no control over the immigration of Japanese, and what is the good of an agreement with Japan? If that is the true legal position, 2051
the only alternative is to cancel the treaty. The spirit of the people of British Columbia is entirely against the immigration of Orientals. This legislation is no doubt extreme, but it is to remove an extreme evil; but if the legal opinion stated is correct that we cannot, by any regulations, orders in council or even legislation of this parliament, restrict or regulate the immigration of Orientals against the provisions of the treaty, then Canada has no control at all of immigration in the face of that treaty. I am not a lawyer, but that seems to me to be the situation, and the only proper conclusion is to cancel the treaty.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to make myself plain to the hon. member for Nanaimo. Canada has, as I understand, very complete control of immigration by the very words of the British North America Act, which give us power to legislate in regard to it. AVe did legislate in regal'd to immigration from Japan when we passed an Act confirming the treaty made between Great Britain and Japan with respect to Canada. We could repeal that Act tomorrow. If we did repeal it, of course there would be an end of the treaty, because Japan would very properly take offence at that. AVe have agreed to confirm the treaty, and, having confirmed it, we could not, upon the principles of international usage, now pass an Act repealing the confirming Act of a year ago. AVe have now before us this statute, the terms of which might in their broadest signification be regarded as inconsistent with the Act of a year ago, especially with reference to Japan. They would not be held to be inconsistent, because in the Act of a year ago we were dealing with a specific subject, namely our relation to Japan, and this Act would not be held as repealing that Act because it deals with the whole subject of immigration. Therefore it seems to me that any order in council issued under this Act would be held, so far as Japan is concerned, to be subject to the Act of a year ago. That is all I intended to express.


Haughton Lennox: I agree with the position taken by the First Alinister that we can pass this statute, but that where it conflicts with the treaty, the treaty will have force and this will not have force. But what I was calling the First Alinister's attention more particularly to was this. After passing an Act confirming a treaty, which prevents us from dealing with the Japanese question in this broad way, the question is whether it is wise for us to pass this Act without qualification. The First Minister says we are in effect tied hand and foot as regards Japan. I admit that. AVe cannot pass such broad legislation as this as regards Japan. I admit that. The hon. member for Nanaimo (Air. Ralph Smith) says that we cannot make laws upon this question. That being the case,

is it wise that we should pass this without qualification, without reference to the position in which we stand in relation to Japan ? As the leader of the opposition (Mr. R. L. Borden) says, a Japanese subject coming here, if arrested, goes into the court, and pleads his right. He does not plead that right on the basis of the understanding between the Minister of Labour (Mr. Le-mieux) and the Japanese government-we cannot set up that implied or verbal understanding-but what we are confronted with is the Japanese treaty, which over-rides the Act that we pass here, supersedes it, controls it and determines the rights of this Japanese subject. And he is released; that is the effect of it. Is it wise to enact legislation that, on the face of it, goes actually beyond what we have the power to enact ? I directed my remarks in the beginning to the first part of this clause, but they apply equally to the second part, though I did not wish to deal with that, as it has been so fully discussed. Nevertheless, I thought it well to call the attention of the government to the unfortunate position in which we are.


Mr. COCKSHUTT.: I agree with my hon. friend, so far as I am able to understand the legal point that this is in conflict with the Japanese treaty and cannot be enforced against the Japanese. Of course, I am not a lawyer and cannot say whether that is the legal effect of the position or not. But I understand it as the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Ralph Smith) stated it-that we have lost control so far as Japanese Immigration is concerned and that this Act would be futile in that respect. Now, I wish to call attention to another point. It would appear, upon the face of this clause that, when the government pass an order in council, a certain thing may be done. What I would like to know from the minister is this: Will this order in council become operative at once, or is notice to be given to the countries concerned? Suppose the order were passed to-morrow, but that a week ago, several shiploads of immigrants started for Canada from different countries which might be affected by this order. These people lawfully embarked, and the transportation companies lawfully undertook to transport them to Canada. If this order becomes operative at once, great injustice will be done to transportation companies and to immigrants who have spent their money for tickets only to find on their arrival here that an order in council has been passed under which they are to be sent back to the countries from which they came. Is due notice to be given, and, if so, what length of notice, to the steamship companies and Immigrants, before such a change In the law goes into operation?	*	[DOT]


Frank Oliver: In the first place, I am bound to say that this proposed legislation is to go into effect, not by being passed by Mr. LENNOX.
the House, but by proclamation of the Governor in Council, and that it is the custom to give due notice before the passage of such an order in council.


Samuel Hughes: Would the order in council be general or specific?


Frank Oliver: In any case, the order in council would affect the transportation companies and immigrants, and it is only right and reasonable that there should be notice. And notice has been given in the past and will be in the future. My hon. friend from South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) mentioned that in the Act as it stands there is a provision that due notice shall be given, and that these words are not contained in the measure as it stands now before the House. The reason for leaving out these words is that when they are placed in the statute, there is the question as to what 'due notice ' is, and this might lead to very serious complications. Therefore, we believe it is better that the government should be trusted to give due notice rather than that words should be put in the statute that would be difficult of interpretation, and might render of none effect the intent of parliament and the action of the government.
In regard to the point which has been under discussion, raised by my hon. friend from South Simcoe-concerning which, perhaps, I have not the same license as members of the legal profession-I must say that the matter does not strike me as they have presented it to the House. It seems to me elementary that the parliament of Canada is supreme within Canada; that whatever parliament has done parliament can undo, that, if, last year, we passed an Act which gave certain privileges to certain people, we can, this year, pass as Act which does not give these privileges to these people, and that Act is valid so far as the courts of Canada are concerned and so far as it affects the people within the boundaries of Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this intended as being pro tanto a repeal of the Act of last year confirming the treaty with Japan?


Frank Oliver: No. I am maintaining, as concerning the Bill before the House, that it does not repeal the Act of last session.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I contended also.


Haughton Lennox: That is what we all contend.


Frank Oliver: But our friends pretend that the intent is to repeal-


Robert Laird Borden: No, I did not.


Haughton Lennox: On the contrary, I agreed with the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) when he said the treaty would be more powerful than this, that the treaty would prevail against this Act.


Frank Oliver: I have not been able to get my point understood yet. As I understand our friends opposite, they maintain that the Act of last session regarding the Japanese treaty stood effective against this Act which we propose to pass this session.


Haughton Lennox: That is right.


Frank Oliver: Well, I say that the matter does not appeal to me in that way. As I said before, the parliament of Canada is supreme within the limits of Canada. The parliament of Canada passed an Act last session with regard to the Japanese treaty. So far as the people of Canada are concerned within the limits of Canada, an Act passed by the parliament of Canada at this session is effective and binding upon the courts of Canada, whether it is or is not contrary to the legislation passed.


Robert Laird Borden: That is what I asked-was this statute intended to repeal the Act of last session in that respect, and the hon. gentleman (Mr. Oliver) said, ' no.'


Frank Oliver: I said, in my estimation. A)1 these matters must be matters of opinion. In my estimation this does not purport to repeal ; but if it did, then I maintain that if this parliament passed it, it would repeal.


Haughton Lennox: If appropriate words were used, it certainly would repeal, but appropriate words are not used.


Frank Oliver: I have rather missed the point of our friends argument or they have missed mine. My understanding is that if this legislation is passed, it will be effective. It will have effect in law and be binding upon the courts as it is expressed, without regard to the terms of the treaty passed last session.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has said exactly the contrary. He has declared that this Act is not intended to repeal or affect in any way the Act of last year and therefore the order in council proposed to be passed must be subject to the treaty of last year. That is an absolute logical conclusion. You cannot get away from it. This Bill is not intended to repeal the Act of last year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Because it is not necessary. The Japanese government have come to an understanding which makes it absolutely unnecessary.


Robert Laird Borden: I am surprised that my hon. friend the Minister of Labour would repeat that twice. Does he not know that any Japanese coming to British Columbia can avail himself of that treaty, absolutely in disregard of any informal arrangement made between this government and the government of .Japan? I did not think I would have to explain that even to any member who does not belong to the legal profession. There is a treaty between the
two nations, which treaty is confirmed by the parliament of Canada. That treaty derives its force in this country altogether from the legislation of this parliament last year, and to suggest that the Minister of Labour and the Japanese Minister of Foreign Affairs can repeal, by an understanding between them, the legislation confirming this treaty is so utterly absurd, that I would not think any one would for one moment entertain such a suggestion.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is a treaty binding upon this country and Japan, but we know that no Japanese subject can leave a port of Japan without the express authority of the Japanese government, and he cannot come to this country against that authority.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend has not been paying attention or he would know that that is not the point. I am speaking of Japanese coming from Hawaii. These are the men to whom the statute would apply and not those who come from Japan.
I might point out what is absolutely obvious. These men coming from Hawaii to British Columbia could invoke that treaty with an absolute disregard of any arrangement made by the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan. The treaty between the Empire of Japan and this country has been confirmed by the parliament of Canada. It is the legislation affirming that treaty which binds Canada, and not any arrangement such as is spoken of by the Minister of Labour. How ridiculous would it not be for any counsel in a British Columbia court to argue, in opposition to a motion for the release of these men that the treaty which gives every Japanese subject the absolute right to enter, travel and reside in Canada has been repealed by an arrangement between the Minister of Labour of Canada and the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan, and therefore these men must be deported. Even a one year's law student, who valued his reputation, would not make such an argument as that.


Robert George Macpherson: Who suggested that ?


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the Minister of Labour to suggest it. I do not know what he did suggest, if he did not intend that. When the legislation was invoked, my hon. friend put forward the operative force of an arrangement made himself with the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Japan.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Not its operative force before our courts. What I say is that the necessity for such deportation will not arise, and consequently there will be no case before our courts and no necessity for invoking this treaty as against the arrangement with Japan. My hon. friend contends

that the treaty may be availed of by any Japanese subject before our courts. But what I reply is that such a possibility is a very remote one indeed. True there is the treaty, but there is also the understanding-not a verbal understanding, as suggested by my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) but a written one-with the Japanese government, under which no immigration can take place except in compliance with that arrangement. No Japanese will be allowed to leave Japan without a passport. My hon. friend suggests that a Japanese might come from the Sandwich Islands and not direct from Japan and might invoke the treaty before our courts. But he is still a Japanese subject, and if he came in contravention of the arrangement between Japan and Canada, he would be acting against the laws of his own country, and the Canadian government would be in a position to deport him.


Robert Laird Borden: That suggestion would be very valuable indeed if the laws of Japan were in force in Canada, but unfortunately they are not. It is the laws of this parliament which are-in force in Canada. Therefore a Japanese subject coming from Hawaii can depend on the terms of the treaty because that treaty has been affirmed by an Act of this parliament. It would be absolutely idle to suggest that any arrangement, whether verbal or written, whether under seal or not, made between our Minister of Labour and the Foreign Minister of Japan, could have the slightest effect on the legal status of that man entering this country from Hawaii. It is absolute nonsense to suppose that such would be the case. Therefore the question comes back to the point from which we started a moment ago. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) admits, and properly admits, that this proposed legislation cannot and does not purport to repeal our statute of last year confirming the treaty between Canada and Japan.


Frank Oliver: What I meant to say. was that it does not purport to repeal that treaty but it could if we wanted It to.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly this parliament can repeal the Act of last year but we are not doing it, and it is idle to discuss the effect of something we are not doing. Let us discuss what we are doing. We are simply leaving the Japanese treaty where it was when we passed that Act confirming it. Therefore any order in council put forth under the terms of this proposed legislation could not in the slightest degree affect the provisions of the Japanese treaty confirmed by an Act of this parliament.


Robert George Macpherson: It has been done in British Columbia by the courts there. Two Japanese were deported to the United States under that order in council.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Robert Laird Borden: I am referring to the decision of the courts of British Columbia alluded to by the right hon. gentleman. We have arrived at the point where we are all agreed that this proposed legislation does not touch the Act of last year. There is but one point to be considered, a point mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, whether an order in council providing that persons not coming in by a continuous journey or on a through ticket, should be deported, would apply to citizens of Japan. The decision of the British Columbia courts indicates that such an order in council would be subject to the Act of last year, and that the operation of the Act of last year would exempt citizens of Japan from the operation of such an order.


Wilfrid Laurier: It is now six o'clock, and I have only this to say, that according to international law I think no treaty prevents one of the contracting parties from exercising the power vested in it to pass municipal regulations necessary for its own protection. For instance, though we have a treaty here, I am quite sure we can exclude a Japanese who is mentally or physically diseased, and if we can do that, we have power to do by legislation all that is necessary to carry out this provision of municipal law, and that is what we intend to do.


Robert Laird Borden: A moment ago, the right hon. gentleman nodded his assent to the proposition of the hon. member for King's that because we have a qualified power to restrict these persons coming from the British isles, therefore we have power of absolute restriction-if he should attempt to apply this argument in the case of Japan, he would be confronted by the treaty.


Wilfrid Laurier: We have power to enforce our own municipal regulations for our own protection. At all events, that is the position we have taken on this question, and we believe it to be legal. I move the previous question.


Robert Laird Borden: I would have liked an opportunity to discuss this matter further.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would like very much to send this Bill to the Senate so that they may act upon it before they adjourn, the Senate adjourns to-morrow. This is very important legislation for British Columbia.


Samuel Hughes: I want to say a few words more.


Wilfrid Laurier: 
Samuel Hughes: The Prime Minister has not shown any necessity for the legislation.
Mr. MACPH 10RSOX. I think there is need of immediate legislation, in the best interest of British Columbia. I trust the House will see fit to meet the Prime Minister's wishes so that this Bill may go to the Senate and become operative at once. There is a crying necessity for it. Is the hon. gentleman prepared to accept the responsibility of delaying legislation which will prevent these yellow people from coming into our province ? What did the leader of the opposition say in British Columbia ? He stood for a white man's country.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman is going to make a stump speech here, he is taking the best means of holding up this Bill. As a matter of fact I object to this Bill going through at the present time. The hon. gentleman was not taking a manly part in British Columbia on this question. We were standing here on this question. We were standing here in defence of a better citizenship.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman cannot make a speech.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the House is not willing to consent to pass this measure now. we have nothing to do but to adjourn.


Samuel Hughes: I want to put myself on record that I am in favour of a white man's country, and also in favour of a decent country.
Progress reported.


Robert Laird Borden: What legislation will be taken up to-morrow ?


Wilfrid Laurier: The Bill of the Minister of Inland Revenue and the two Bills of the Minister of Railways.


Samuel Hughes: Will this matter be taken up again to-morrow ?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.
House adjourned at six o'clock.

Thursday, April 9, 1908.