1909-11-30

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LLOYD HARRISS (Brantford) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 50) respecting co-operation.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER..: Explain.


Mr. HARRIS.: I am introducing this Bill for the reason that our present laws do not appear to provide for the incorporation and supervision of co-operative societies. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) introduced the other day a Bill for the purpose of providing for the incorporation and supervision of co-operative societies confined solely to the loan and credit aspect. I had intended providing in my Bill for the incorporation and supervision of trading societies only. However, after consideration and consultation with my hon. friend, I thought it better to introduce a Bill which would cover both kinds of societies. Therefore the Bill I am introducing provides for the incorporation and supervision of all kinds of co-operative societies.


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

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING moved second reading of Bill (No. 12), respecting a certain supplementary convention between His Majesty and the president of the French Republic. He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to obtain parliamentary approval of a small amendment which the government have agreed to make to the Franco-Canadian Treaty of 1907; an amendment which, from the Canadian point of view, is not of very great importance, though I will not say it is of no importance, but which nevertheless is somewhat important from the point of view of the French authorities, inasmuch as it served to disarm hostility which was manifested in the French Senate towards the approval of the treaty. I do not deem it necessary to discuss the merits of the main treaty. That measure was brought before parliament in the session before last, it was fully considered and fully discussed, and the House, by something approaching a unanimous vote, decided that it should receive approval. In due course that treaty was approved by the Senate of Canada, and an Act of parliament was passed accordingly. The treaty was approved within a reasonably short time by the French Chamber of Deputies, a body which corresponds to our own House of Commons. It then 23
passed to the French Senate, and there considerable opposition arose, particularly from prominent gentlemen identified with the agricultural interest of France. They were very much alarmed by the concessions which were being granted by France to the Canadian farmer-possibly needlessly alarmed, certainly in some respects. At all events, the agricultural interest of France is one of the utmost importance, and any suggestion that the French government were agreeing to measures which would prejudice the agricultural interest found many listeners, and for some considerable time the treaty was delayed in the Senate. The French government were most loyal to the treaty which they themselves had made. By every reasonable effort within their power they were willing to have that treaty approved; but they had to realize the difficulties which were encountered in the French Senate. When I had the opnortunity of discussing the matter with the French authorities in Paris, it was suggested by the French ministers that if we could make material concessions in the agricultural schedule, it would help them very much to obtain the approval of the treaty. I did not feel that I would be justified in consenting to any considerable change. As the negotiations proceeded, it became apparent that the item of cattle was one as respects which our French friends were particularly alarmed. Some paragraphs appeared in the French press about that time to the effect that certain American organizations were about to establish huge slaughter houses at one of the French ports, and it was expected that there would be a large importation of fat cattle ready for the butchers, and this would affect materially the French agricultural interest.
In the discussion, finding that the point was one which was regarded by the opponents of the treaty in the Senate as of the utmost importance, I thought we could find in it a solution of the difficulties between France and Canada in the matter. I found on inquiry that Canada had not been doing any considerable cattle . trade with France, practically none, and that whatever we might hope for the future, it was not likely that we could in the early future send fat cattle to France ready for the butcher. And so, after duq consideration, finding that the concession in regard to that particular class of things, would help to secure the French approval of the treaty, would be very agreeable to the French government, and would disarm to a very large extent, though not wholly, the opposition which had arisen in the French Senate, after communicating with my colleagues, I agreed that to the four items in the treaty which dealt with cattle we should add the qualifying words, ' to the exclusion of fat cattle ready for the butcher.' That is



to say, we still reserve the right to send in under the French treaty cattle which are not ready for the butcher, but which are to be finished in France before they pass to the slaughter house. The concession, as I have said, was one of only moderate importance from the Canadian point of view, but was regarded as a very important one by the French authorities, and was the means of disarming hostility to the treaty and ultimately obtaining the consent to the Senate thereto. We having consented to make this concession, a question arose as to what should bevthe method of determining the line of demarcation between fat cattle, which should be excluded and other cattle, which would be entitled to the privilege of .the treaty. Our French friends proposed that the line of demarcation should be found by indicating what they called a percentage of neat meat, that is to say, the percentage of meat which an animal would produce ready to be placed in the butcher's stall, and excluding hides, horns and the various other elements which hon. gentlemen more familiar with the cattle industry will readily understand. While the proposal was not unreasonable in itself, I felt that it was a method not understood by our Canadian farmers, and that perhaps it would not be the best method of establishing the line of demarcation. Besides there was this further difficulty which arose in our minds, that if we should make a mistake by having a percentage of neat meat established which experience would show was not a correct one, which would be perhaps unfair to Canada, it would nevertheless be so definitely fixed in the treaty that we would have no right to revise it.
-Mr. E. L. BOEDEN. Is this test capable of ascertainment while the animal is alive?
' Mr. FIELDING. Yes. Expert buyers in the French market are accustomed to estimate, from the general appearance of the animal as it passes before them, and I have no doubt with a fair degree of accuracy, what percentage of neat meat that animal will realize. It is done in practice in France; but, as I thought the method was not understood by our Canadian people, and there was a bare possibility that in fixing the percentage at that time an error should be m&de, I thought it well that the percentage should not be definitely fixed in the treaty. And so, I proposed to the French authorities that instead of defining it in the treaty, we should declare in general terms that what was meant was that fat cattle ready for the butcher should be excluded, and that we would leave the interpretation of that to the French government. Necessarily each case would have to be determined promptly. If a shipment of cattle should arrive, it would be neces-Mr. FIELDING.
sary to determine that point at once, and we recognized the right and propriety of the French government deciding that at once, and that their decision should be final. But, we said, if it should appear at any time that the decisions you are giving on that question were unreasonable and unfair and at variance with the spirit of the treaty, then we shall ask the privilege of going over to your French office and making our representations and relying on the French government to correct any error that may be found. The French authorities agreed to accept the amendment in that way, and we were strongly of the opinion that, while we are leaving the matter for the moment absolutely to the judgment of the Department of Agriculture of France, we might rely on the French government receiving our representations and correcting any error that might be found in the conclusions reached. Added to the treaty there will be found an exchange of letters which practically form part of the treaty. I beg to be permitted to read these two, because they contain the whole case on that point. The first is from myself to Mr. Euau, Minister of Agriculture of the French Eepublic.
Paris, February 8, 1909.
Sir,-As a result of the recent negotiations between members of the French government and myself with a view to the recasting of schedule A of the Franco-Canadian Commercial Convention of the 19th September, 1907, by the, exclusion, from the list of the Canadian products enjoying the benefit of the minimum tariff, of animals in fat condition for butchering, I have considered your suggestion to adopt a percentage of neat meat as a line of demarcation between animals to be admitted under the minimum tariff and those three excluded therefrom. I am of opinion that it would not he expedient to include this modus operandi in the convention itself, as it touches only the methods of carrying out what is proposed.
I would prefer that the proposed formula be inscribed in our agreement in general terms indicating our mutual understanding, and I would leave with the French government the duty of giving to this complementary clause a fair and reasonable interpretation by means of customs regulations. We would have no objection whatever to the adoption by the French authorities of the percentage method, should they prefer that method, as it could he changed or modified in case a trial of it were to demonstrate that it did not give satisfaction, and the Canadian government would reserve then to itself the right of making necessary representations to your government.
I am, sir, with the highest regards,
Yours very truly,



W. S. FIELDING.

[Stage Direction]
That letter was replied to in the following terms by the French Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Euau:
Paris, January 8, 1909.
Excellency,-The object of the negotiations which have been proceeded with for

these last fen- days between yourself and the French government was as far as my own department is concerned, to modify schedule A of the Franco-Canadian convention of September 19, 1907, by the exclusion from items 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the list of the Canadian products admitted to the benefits of the minimum tariff, of animals in fat condition for butchering. By your letter dated January 8, 1909, you were good enough to let me know that, without rejecting the suggested system of a fixed percentage of neat meat as a fair line of demarcation between animals enjoying minimum tariff and those submitted to the general tariff, you will prefer that the proposed change should be inscribed in our agreement in general terms; and you add to this that you would leave to the French government the duty of interpreting this clause as fairly and reasonably as possible by means of regulations. In case of the adoption by the French authorities of the percentage system above mentioned, the Canadian government would make no objection to said adoption, it being understood that should the experiment be found unsatisfactory, your government would reserve to itself the right of making the necessary representations to the French government.
In answer to your communication, I have the honour to inform you that we are fully in accord as to the following formula to be used in schedule A of the convention of September 19, 1907, as to the Canadian products enjoying the minimum tariff:
[Stage Direction]
No. of the French tariff products.
4.	Oxen (1).
5.	Cows (1).
6.	Bulls (1).
7.	Bullocks, steers and heiffers (1).
To the exclusion of animals in fat condition for butchering.
With regard to the system to be applied in order to ascertain what animals are to be subject to the minimum tariff and what to the general tariff the French government reserves to itself the right to follow the method of the percentage of neat meat or any other fair and equitable method, it being *well understood, that, in order to avoid any dispute between the importers and the French government, the condition of the animals, as to the matter in hand, shall be determined by duly sworn special agents of the ministry of agriculture, whose findings shall be final.
I beg to add that, in the unlikely event of experience founded on a series of well authenticated instances, demonstrating to our two governments that the method adopted by the French government is defective, the governments of Canada and France would jointly seek another modus operandi.
May I beg you kindly accept, Excellency, the assurance of my high esteen.
(Sgd.) J. RUATT,
The Minister of Agriculture.
So it was agreed that we should make this concession and that, rather than adopt at once the French system of percentage of neat meat, we should agree to leave the matter in the hands of the French government, accepting their assurance that it would be administered in good faith, and that, should any difference arise, we might.
23}
rely on a friendly adjustment between the two nations. So far I have dealt with all that is in the treaty. The treaty itself contains only a few lines, and these letters annexed are to be read as part of it.
There is another point to which attention was drawn and which was dealt with, not in the treaty itself, but in a friendly correspondence. It touches the question of direct importation. In the main treaty, article 8 reads as follows:
To enjoy the benefits of the aforementioned tariff advantages, products originating in France, Algeria, the French colonies and possessions and the territories of the protectorate of Indo-China, shall be conveyed without transhipment from a port of those territories.
That is from a French port-or from a port of a territory enjoying the preferential tariff or intermediate tariff into a sea or river port of Canada.
The latter part of the clause corresponds exactly, in reversing the order, and provides that a Canadian product shall be conveyed for transhipment from a Canadian port or from a port in a country enjoying the French minimum tariff to a port in France. When the main treaty was under consideration, myJion. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asked what interpretation we put on that clause, and my answer was to the effect that, in the absence of any qualifying or modifying words, where reference was made to a country enjoying the intermediate tariff or a country enjoying the preferential tariff, we thought it would be held to mean a country enjoying the whole of such tariff.
Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: What article is that?


Mr. FIELDING.: Article No. 8. We did not take any formal legal opinion on the point, but I gave at the time what seemed to be the general impression and what seemed to he the ground we, acting for Canada, should properly take. The question became of interest to Switzerland. Switzerland was a little impatient, hardly willing to wait until the treaty was ratified in due course, and desiring that an interpretation should be given the clause at an early date, made application, through the diplomatic channels, to know the Canadian interpretation. Switzerland is an inland country, ultimately determined to be one of the nations entitled to favoured nation treatment, and she was interested in knowing from what ports she should send her goods, these goods being of the same class as mentioned in the treaty. We did not, at that time, think it was desirable that we should undertake to interpret that in any formal and official way. We thought that if the matter was in doubt it ought to he the subject of negotiation with the French authorities before we should give any final

interpretation. What we understood from the reading of the treaty was that Switzerland might send her goods to Canada by way of England, because England enjoyed the whole preferential tariff. We were asked if we would care to give an expression of opinion. Having first pointed out that *as the treaty had not been completed, was not yet ratified and had not gone into operation, we were indisposed to come to any official determination on that point and lay it before a third party, yet, in answer to the request of the imperial authorities, we stated the view which we had expressed in parliament in answer, if I recollect correctly, to the question of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). That interpretation was accepted and approved by the British government with, however, the remark that the point was not free from [DOT]doubt.


Mr. E. L. BORDEN.: What was the nature of the answer to the hon. member for Jacques Cartier?


William Stevens Fielding: The answer was to the effect that the words 'a country enjoying the benefits of the preferential tariff'-or the intermediate tariff or the minimum tariff-would mean in each case a country enjoying the full tariff. We gave the interpretation that we thought, from the Canadian point of view at the time, we should uphold, and the imperial authorities concurred in that interpretation, but with the remark that the matter was not free from doubt.
The treaty having been disposed of by the French Senate, it had to go back to the French Chamber of Deputies which had passed the main treaty, but had to deal with the supplementary treaty. Again some difficulty arose with regard to the position of the treaty. Although the Chamber of Deputies had accepted the main treaty, the discussions which had taken place in the Senate had attracted attention. Very influential members of the Senate had taken strong ground against the treaty, and when the supplementary treaty had to come before the Chamber of Deputies considerable opposition was developed there. That opposition was, however, ultimately overcome, and the Chamber of Deputies passed the treaty. So that all that remains is that the parliament of Canada shall give its approval to the supplementary treaty, and then will follow formal ratification.
Linder later negotiations which, in some cases, did not take the form of correspondence, though in some cases they did, our French friends raised the same question that had been raised by Switzerland. We presented the same view that we presented to the parliament of Canada-that shipment of goods by way of a country under the preferential tariff would mean a country Mr. FIELDING.
enjoying the whole preferential tariff, and so with respect to the other tariffs. But the French authorities took a different view. They pointed to provisions in their own customs regulations, founded,_ necessarily, upon the French statutes, showing that they were in the habit of interpreting a substantially similar clause, so that where a third country enjoyed a favourable tariff as respects the particular article to be exported, that covered all the conditions. In other words, they argued that if, for example, France wished to send her products by way of any other country which had the benefit of the Canadian intermediate tariff as respects the particular item referred to, she should be free to do so.


Mr. FOSTEE.: Free as regards that class of goods.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, that was the point. Our contention, up to a certain point, was that, unless the country had the whole tariff, it could not claim that privilege. As I have said, they were able to show that, under somewhat similar conditions in the administration of their own custom laws, they recognized the principle that if there was favourable treatment as respects that one article the privilege should be given in relation to that article as though they had the benefit of the whole tariff. They urged us very strongly to agree to that. From our own point of view it did not seem a matter of very much importance. What we were aiming at was the cultivation of direct transatlantic trade. We desired the French goods to come direct from France to Canada. If they were to come through any other country, we would naturally prefer that they should come through Great Britain. But if the goods should come through the ports of any European country having a treaty with Canada, they would still be direct trans-atlantic shipments. While we preferred they should come by Britain, the vital matter, according to our views, was that the goods should come direct across the Atlantic to a Canadian port. According to our interpretation, Switzerland, being entitled to the benefit of the treaty, could only send her goods by way of Great Britain, because Great Britain alone had the complete preferential tariff. Under the interpretation which the French claimed, and which Switzerland was anxious to have, Switzerland could send any article under the treaty by way of Havre, a French port, because under our treaty France would have the benefit of the intermediate tariff as regards that article. If, for instance, Switzerland wanted_ to send a parcel of silks, under our first interpretation she would have to send it to a British port; under the later interpretation she could send it to a French port, because France has the benefit of our intermediate tariff as regards that article. Under either

interpretation, that would be accomplished which we principally desired-direct trade with Canada. As France thought it important, and as it did not seem to affect our policy in any material way, we came to the conclusion that we would accept the French interpretation. But I thought that, in view of what had occurred in this parliament, I should point out to the French government that we had given a different interpretation in parliament and that therefore the agreement I was disposed to make with them would be subject to the reservation that if on inquiry we found further legislation was necessary we should make the matter subject to revision by the parliament of Canada. However, on my return from France, having brought the matter to the notice of the Department of Justice in a more formal way, we asked if further legislation was necessary to enable _ us to accept the interpretation of that clause respecting direct shipment. AfteT consideration, the department advised that it was not necessary to legislate on the question, that if the customs authorities saw fit to give that interpretation, they could do so and still be within their legal rights. Therefore, we have not. proposed legislation on this point. It will be observed that the British government accepted our interpretation of the clause given in the first place as the correct one, though, at the same time, intimating that the' point was not free from doubt. Seeing that it was a point to which our French friends attached importance, and that it did not affect, our chief purpose of having direct transatlantic trade with Canada, we decided to accept that, interpretation, and, under the advice of the Department of Justice, we have concluded that that can be done without further legislation.


George Eulas Foster: One word before the minister sits down. He has given the theoretical part of it, will he kindly make the argument concrete and show us in how many wavs, that'is. bv how manv routes, French goods can get into Canada,*- and by how many routes Swiss goods can get into Canada and still come under the treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: Bv a route through any country which has a favoured-nation treaty with Great Britain, and a list of such countries has been given to the House. Practically it is onlv the countries having well known sea-ports, but any countries possessing a favoured-nation treaty with Great Britain will receive the benefit of the French treaty.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that a favoured-nation treaty with Great Britain would' be of no importance at all in connection with this treaty unless it extended to Canada, would it?


William Stevens Fielding: Although we go through the form of passing legislation to give
effect to it, it has been held by the imperial authorities that these favoured-nation treaties apply to the whole British empire, and consequently apply to Canada.


Robert Laird Borden: But there is a marked distinction, as any one who has looked over the British treaties of the past twenty years will have discovered, between those which in terms cover the various dominions of the empire and those which do not. I would like to avoid any misapprehension. As I understand it, all the governments of Great Britain within the past fifteen or twenty years have made a distinction in framing their treaties in that regard.


William Stevens Fielding: In recent years of course, as every one knows, no treaty is made concerning Canada except with the co-operation and concurrence of the Canadian government, and any treaty made in recent years would not be included unless it is specifically made with Canada, that is, it would not apply to Canadian products. To-dav there are a number of treaties which have been held to be binding on Canada, made many years ago, and it is these to which I refer.


Robert Laird Borden: The vital part, the essential part of it is that the most favoured-nations clause practically is one applying in respect of Canada to the foreign countries alluded to.


William Stevens Fielding: In the case of the older treaties there is no specific reference to Canada, in some cases there is no specific reference even to the colony.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not speaking of specific reference at all.


William Stevens Fielding: Some oi the older treaties, such as the Swiss treaty, which was a subject of some doubt, and which was made awav back in the fifties, do not specifically refer to Canada, or even to the colonies. But I suppose in the general terms of all such treaties there was room for debate as to what that meant.


Robert Laird Borden: I think my hon. friend does not quite understand me.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon member for North Toronto put the question. What are the countries through which these goods may be shipped from France.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend, in answer to the member for North Toronto, defined it in respect to the United Kingdom. I say that it ought to be defined, so far as I understand the treaty, in respect to Canada. because there are some treaties that bind the United Kingdom and do not bind Canada.


William Stevens Fielding: My answer was that every one of the countries which, by virtue

of the favoured-nation treaties, become entitled to the privilege of this French treaty. Have I made the point clear?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


William Stevens Fielding: , That is what I have in my mind. I think I have met the question of the hon. member for North Toronto.


Mr. DANIEL.: Will that include the United States?


William Stevens Fielding: The -United States has no favoured-nation treaty that affects us.


Mr. AEMSTEONG.: How many other countries would receive similar advantages as France is receiving in this treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: That matter has been from time to time one of doubt; it is not as simple a problem as it looks. The language of some of these treaties is open to doubt, and there is sometimes a conflict of opinion as to what countries are entitled to favoured-nation treatment. But the countries which are recognized as entitled to the favoured-nation treatment are: The Argentine Eepublic, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Colombia, Denmark, Japan, Eussia, Sweden, Venezuela, Norway and Switzerland. Most of these are old treaties, in the framing of which Canada was not asked to take part. But the Japanese treaty is one which was made directly with the co-operation of Canada.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There is another question I would like to ask the minister. I sent a question into the Clerk of the House, but it has not appeared on the Order Paper to-day, though it appears in the Votes and Proceedings, I wish the minister would be good enough to answer it before we proceed jrith the discussion. Is the government prepared to grant to Germany a similar treaty to the one accepted with France?


William Stevens Fielding: I do not mind anticipating the orders of the day for to-morrow. But a similar question was put a few days ago, and the Minister of Customs replied that it was not deemed expedient, while these matters connected with the French treaty were still unsettled, that we should enter into negotiations with other foreign countries.


Frederick William Borden: I have very little to say wtih regard to the treaty at this stage. My hon. friend has very correctly pointed out the situation. We already ratified the main treaty two years ago, and there was a subsequent delay owing to the inaction of the French' Senate. My hon. friend said that the amendments and provisions of the supplementary treaty are regarded as important by those interests in the French Senate which objected to the Mr. FIELDING.
original treaty. He considers that they should not be regarded as very important by this House. I am inclined to think he is correct. Perhaps I will give his argument a more comprehensive application than he himself would be inclined to do, because I have serious doubt indeed whether the treaty will have any great effect upon trade between France and this country. The treaty entered into by the Conservative government of 1893 did not, I think, have any great effect upon trade* I do not think that this treaty will give us any very marked change, either in the imports or exports of this country from or to France. We have to remember that France is a highly protectionist country. If we look for a moment at the articles to which the Minister of Finance has alluded, and to the French tariff applicable to them, we will see what the situation is. In regard to articles 4, 5, 6 and 7, the maximum of the French tariff is 30 francs per 100 kilograms, the minimum tariff is 20 francs for 100 kilograms.
In other words, under the minimum tariff which is available to Canadian exports, provided the cattle are not fat cattle for butchering, an animal weighing 2,000 pounds would pay $36; under the French maximum tariff, a similar animal would pay $54. The figures which I have given are not absolutely exact, but they are sufficiently accurate for practical purposes. These duties are in my opinion practically prohibitive. I think, therefore, the Minister of Finance is perfectly justified in saying that he would not anticipate a very large export from Canada to France under the minimum tariff, and I am sure he can be absolutely positive that there will be no export whatever under the maximum tariff. So when he points out that this supplementary treaty does not bring about any amendment which is of importance, I entirely concur with him, but perhaps not for the reason that he suggested. I concur with him because I do not think that the treaty in its original form, in respect of this item or any other touching especially the agricultural interests of this country, will be of the slightest benefit to Canada in the immediate future.
Something may be said by way of emphasis in addition to what was said when the treaty was under debate two years ago. It is hoped by a great many people in this country and throughout the empire that we may have under the British flag some day in the not too distant future a system of mutual preferences. We at the present time give to Great Britain a preference in our markets, a preference which is very much cut down by comparison under the provisions of this very treaty, so far as France is concerned. I doubt very much the wisdom of complicating our tariff by treaty provisions which would prevent Canada

from fully entering into a system of such mutual trade preferences. However, I did not vote against the treaty on that ground two years ago, and I am not disposed to vote against it to-day on that ground for the reason that the treaty includes a very important clause by which it may be brought to an early termination in case of necessity. There is a provision in the treaty that it can be denounced, that is brought to a termination, at any time upon twelve months' notice. If that provision were not in the treaty, I would be disposed to vote against it for the reason I have lastly given, but as that provision is in the treaty, I think probably it will safeguard our interests, so far as the probability of a system of mutual trade preferences between Great Britain and the rest of the empire is concerned.
Has the Minister of Finance given us, In his remarks this afternoon, everything which is of importance in the correspondence brought down? It was my expectation that before this treaty was brought on for debate, the correspondence would have been printed and placed in possession of every hon. member of this House. That would seem to be the usual and wise course; but if the Minister of Finance has placed before us everything of importance in that correspondence, of which we are not in possession except in some returns in the hands of one of the officials of the House, I will not be inclined to object on that account. Otherwise I think the treaty ought to stand until we have the correspondence printed and placed in the hands of every hon. member so that we may thoroughly realize what we are doing when we ratify the treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: If any intimation had been given that it was desired to have the correspondence printed, I would have had no objection. There is nothing in it as between France and Canada except a formal notice that the treaty has been, in due course, approved. But there is some correspondence which passed between the Canadian government and the British government on inquiries from Switzerland on the lines to which I have referred, not touching the treaty directly but raising this question as to the proper interpretation of one clause. I think I am correct in stating that the correspondence contains nothing between Canada and France with reference to the treaty, but there is correspondence incidental to it, respecting the inclusion of other countries, and that it will be found in the correspondence brought down.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Mr. Sneaker, I feel satisfied that the present treaty will comnlicate our trade arrangements with other lands. I am glad and willing to support any trade arrangement that will bring to Canada better trade facilities and means whereby we can get our products to the markets of the world, but I am satisfied that the present treaty, as it grants to practically every important country in Europe, except Italy and Germany, advantages similar to those granted to France, there is no doubt in my mind that it will create all kinds of trade disturbances.	,
In granting to France this treaty it seems to me that instead of our writing across it the title ' Franco-Canadian Treaty,' we might as well have entitled it ' The Switzerland Treaty ' or the ' Austrian Treaty ' or the treaty with any of the European nations.	j
I feel it my duty to place on ' Hansard ' some statistics in regard to the effect it is likely to have on the agricultural interests of Canada. The total exports ^to France from Canada last year were $3,176,000. The exports of foreign produce amounted to $834,000, so that the total Canadian produce exported to France amounted to only $2,340,000. In looking over the Trade and Navigation returns, I find the following items of export which are interesting from a farmer's standpoint: Our exports from Canada to France of the following items of agricultural produce were: Butter, none; cheese, $81; eggs, none; animals, none; meats, viz. bacon, $40; beef, none; hams, $144: mutton, none; pork, none; poultry, dressed or undressed, none; meats, all others, not otherwise specified, none; milk and cream, condensed or canned, none; wool; none; dried apples, $3,000; green apples, $2,000; barley, none; buckwheat, pone: Indian corn, none; oats, none; peas, $34,000; split peas, $3,000; rye, none; wheat, $105,000; other grain, none; bran, $6; flour of wheat, none; oatmeal, none; all other kinds of meal, none; hay, none; hops, none; clover seed, $730; flaxseed, none; grass seed, $1,120; all others, none; straw, none j trees, shrubs and plants, $2,500; vegetables, canned or preserved, $195; potatoes, none; turnips, none. It is quite an exception for Canada to export $105,000 worth of -wheat to France because France is a large producer of wheat herself. In normal years our exports to France in wheat are very small. France is really an exporting country in farm products. Taking all the products of the farm last year the exports to France amounted to only $150,000. And vet the Finance Minister practically admits that Canadian farm products will not go in under any more favourable conditions and are not more likely to be exported to France under the new treaty than thev were under the old. What you do by this treaty is to say to the steamship companies that you shall give them $200,000 per annum to trade with France directlv when practically all the products exported from our farms to France

last year amounted to only $150,000. Let us see how you are going to benefit our trade with France. The imports into Canada from France amount to about $10,000,000 and you can depend upon it that the French manufacturers will be able to ship goods into this country in much larger quantities than they have in the past. But, are . we Canadians getting any benefit from this treaty? Our exports of agricultural implements to France were as follows: Mowing machines, $184,000 worth: reapers, $62,000 worth; harvesters, $260,000; hay rakes, $4,000 worth; other manufactured agricultural implements, $194,000 worth; parts of agricultural implements, $44,000 worth; making in all $761,000 worth of agricultural implements that are being shipped by us into France. One other important item is canned lobsters and $990,000 worth of canned lobsters went into France last year. But with regard to canned lobsters the present treaty is the same as the old treaty so that our trade in that respect is not helped in anv degree. However, these two items of export make a total of $1,750,000. and if you deduct this from our general exports you can readily see what a small amount of exports we have in other lines. Now. Mr. Speaker, I believe that we should have a definite tariff policy with regard to all countries in the world. Look at the sad plight our trade is in with the German empire. Surely it is time for the government to wake up to the fact that the time has come when we should improve our trade relations with Germany, and yet when I mentioned Germany a short time ago the Prime Minister indulged in a hearty laugh.


Wilfrid Laurier: Gh, no.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Let the Prime Minister look at the immense importations which Germany is making from the different nations of the world. Germany is today importing two billion dollars worth of goods, one billion dollars worth of which is in food products and over $300,000,000 worth of which is for just such agricultural * products as we produce in the Dominion of Canada. Let the Prime Minister remember that Germany imported last year $96,000,000 bushels of barley, 41,000,000 bushels of oats, 25,000,000 bushels of rye, 73,000,000 bushels of wheat-not one bushel of-which was from Canada-a total of 236,000,000 bushels of grain valued at $216,000,000 and yet Canada got into Germany out of that immense quantity only $2,619 worth. Surely the German trade is of some importance to the people of this country. France is selfsupporting in the matter of agricultural products, but Germany is far from being so, and hence it is incumbent on the government to arrange a trade convention with the German empire and put an end to this trade war which has had such disastrous Mr. ARMSTRONG.
results for the last thirteen years. To-day we are supplying forty per cent of the British demand with the products of our farmers, and when you take into consider-atk n that ten years hence our great western prairies will be producing 500,000,000 bushels of grain, must we not arrive at the conclusion that It is absolutely indispensable we should have a trade arrangement with Germany, which is the second best market in the world for agricultural products. Just take one other item; the United States sent into Germany 28,000,000 pounds of evaporated apples last year, valued at $2,400,000; 123,000 barrels of green apples, valued at $620,000 or an average of over $5 a barrel. The total quantity of apples imported into Germany was 2,839,000 barrels and Great Britain imports only about 2,500,000 barrels. Germany with its 63,000,000 of a population need's just such products as Canada produces and it is in our interest to trade with her. Look at some other figures which will be of interest: There was imported into Germany from Australia $42,000,000 worth, from Brazil $47,000,000 worth, and from the Argentine Republic $106,000,000, from Chili $46,000,000 worth, from the United States $16,000,000 worth, and from Canada a paltry $1,900,000 worth. The Prime Minister knows full well that perhaps eighty per cent of the exports of the Argentine Republic are agricultural products, and I would be safe in saying that at least $80,000,000 worth of her expel ts to Germany were agricultural products. The Minister of Customs told me that last year we sent to Germany $500,000 worth of agricultural products and that this year it would only reach $300,000 worth. When is this tariff war going to end? Should we not come here like business men and take steps to put an end to this disastrous condition. Does not the Prime Minister know that during the past few months there have been in Canada, speaking before our Canadian clubs and our Boards of Trade, representatives of the Board of Trade of Berlin, Germany, who realize that the tariff war between Germany and Canada has lasted long enough and who urge that some amicable arrangement should now be arrived at? I have met these gentlemen from time to time and I feel satisfied that were the Canadian government to make approaches to Germany their advances would be most cordially received. We have had enough of these tariff treaty blunders; the Minister of Finance has for years been neglectful of his duty in this respect, but I trust that now he and the other members of the government will realize the importance of making some sensible trade arrangement with Germany. Instead of more Canadian goods going into Germany from year to year, there are constantly less and less, and there are less German goods coming into Canada. We can not expect to obtain

control of a large portion of the German market in a short time, for it takes years to develop a trade in Germany. It is all very well for this government to spend thousands of dollars to try to develop a trade with Japan, when we have to educate the people of Japan to eat the products which we are producing. But here are 63,000,000 people who are importing a billion dollars worth of food products every year. It is time we got rid of this trade war with Germany and come to some, understanding with this country.


Mr. LALOR.: If I am not out of order, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Customs what brought about the misunderstanding with Germany? Was it our British preference? In what year was it that Germany placed a surtax on Canadian goods, and in what year was it that Canada retaliated?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend has correctly stated the cause of the difference between Germanv and Canada. When Canada claimed the right to grant preferential treatment to Great Britain, the point was raised that we were debarred from doing so, not by reason of what is called the ordinary favoured nation treaty, but by two treaties of a different character. The favoured nation treaty demands only that whatever favour is given to one foreign nation shall be given to another. But in the cases of Germany and Belgium there were special treaties which provided that in the British colonies German goods and Belgian goods should be received on the same terms as the goods of Great Britain. It was felt, therefore, that we were not free to carry out our desire to grant a preference to Great Britain unless those treaties were removed. As a consequence, I think I mav fairly say, of the action of the parliament of Canada in declaring for that preference, and in putting it into operation as far as we could, the British government gave notice to Germany and to Belgium that those treaties would be denounced; and they ceased to exist, if my memory serves me rightly, in 1898. Thereupon Germany complained that they were not receiving from Canada the favours which they had formerly received. After the denunciation of those treaties bur British preference had full effect. We granted the preferential rates to Great Britain, while, of course, the products of Belgium and of Germany paid the rates of the general tariff.


Robert Laird Borden: The British preference had been granted before that.


William Stevens Fielding: The British preference was granted in the first instance in 1897. Out of that grew the discussion to which I am referring, and in 1908, on the
first day of August, if my memory serves me, the German and Belgian treaties were denounced. I think the denunciation of the treaties took effect in the summer of 1898, and thereupon Great Britain received the preferential rates, while Germany and Belgium became liable to the rates of the general tariff. Belgium, it is only fair to say, never complained, but to her credit recognized the fact, apparently, that this was a family affair of the British empire, which we had a right to arrange as we pleased. Germany took exception to our action, and thereupon imposed her maximum tariff on imports from Canada. After the treaty was denounced, Germany entered into a new treaty with Great Britain, but from its benefits specifically excluded Canada, and from that time forward Canadian goods entering Germany were made to bear the maximum rates of duty. From that time forward we were obliged, under our policy, to impose the higher rates on German and Belgian goods. We entered on negotiations with Germany through the usual diplomatic channels, which occupied a long time. At a later stage we entered into negotiations directly with the German Consul General at Montreal, Mr. Bopp. Representations were made by the government of Canada to Germany, to this effect, that we were not denying to Germany anything that we gave to any other foreign countrv, but something that we were giving solely to the mother country; and we urged that Germany should not recognize what was a family affair of the British empire as discrimination against Germany. We urged that view of the matter in various ways, and several years passed before we reached the conclusion that nothing more could be done with Germany; and finally we imposed what is called the surtax on German goods imported into Canada. This was done because Germany claimed the right to interfere in the family affairs'of the British empire, and that we would not agree to.


Mr. SPROULE.: Sir Charles Tupper
warned the government in 1897 that that would be likely to take place.


William Stevens Fielding: If we had not undertaken the step we did at that time, it is a moral certainty that the treaties would never have been denounced.


Robert Laird Borden: My recollection of the dates is that the new treaty between Great Britain and Germany was made on the very day the old treaty ceased to have operation, or on the day immediately afterwards.
air. FIELDING. Quite likely.
air. R. L. BORDEN. That treaty, then, must have been in process of negotiation for some months during the period imme-

diately anterior to the -denunciation of the old treaty. Was this government aware that the British government was going to enter into a treaty with Germany from the benefits of which Canada would be excluded? *


William Stevens Fielding: It might be understood that we would get the benefits of that treaty if we gave up our preferential policy.


Frederick William Borden: There is another question. Did the new treaty give to Germany the same rights in the markets of the other British dominions as the mother country had?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that Canada and one of the West India Islands were excepted. Otherwise the treaty applied to the whole British empire.


Frederick William Borden: That is not quite an answer to my question. The old treaty provided that Germany should have in the markets of Canada, Australia and all the other British colonies, the same rights! as Great Britain herself had. In the new treaty, which must have been before the' government, and the terms of which they must have been aware of, was there any provision similar to that?


William Stevens Fielding: I have not had the treaty before me for years, but I remember that it -did exclude Canada and, if my memory serves me, one of the West India Islands.


Frederick William Borden: I do not make myself clear to the 'hon. Minister of Finance. The new treaty might give the benefits of the -minimum German tariff to Great Britain and all the British dominions without at the same time providing that Germany should have the same tariff rates in those dominions that Great Britain herself had. What I would like to know is whether that is the case. When the German minimum tariff is applied to all the British dominions except Canada, was that the consideration of the granting to Germany of the same rights in the markets of those dominions as. Great Britain herself had?


William Stevens Fielding: I would not care to answer off hand as that applies to a matter now somewhat distant. As respects the other colonies, I would not care to say definitely how it affects them, but its relation to Canada we had clearly in our minds and that was as I have described.


Frederick William Borden: In the despatch which announced the denunciation of the treaty, Lord Salisbury said it was denounced in the interests of the whole empire. That was the principle he affirmed. But when a new treaty was being made by which the minimum German tariff was to be applied to the remainder of the empire, Mr. E. L. BOEDEN.
why should it have been withheld from Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: At that time Canada was the only portion which adopted a preferential policy and the others were not affected as we were.


Frederick William Borden: That shows the importance of the other question I put. Unless Germany retained the right within the markets of every dominion of the empire to have the same privileges as Britain herself, the answer of the Minister of Finance is absolutely without significance unless that particular provision were made in the new treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: We were chiefly concerned in the provisions respecting Canada and of these we have no doubt.


Frederick William Borden: Still Canada has exactly the same right as any other dominion of the empire to be treated with consideration in a treaty made by the empire as a whole, particularly as that treaty was brought about under the circumstances to which the Minister of Finance has just alluded.


Francis Ramsey Lalor: My object in asking that question was in order that we might be put right as to what appears to be our present trade relations with Germany-whether Canada was in any way to blame for the surtax placed by Germany on Canadian goods and whether we are right in retaliating. My own view is that we were perfectly within our rights and that the government acted wisely and properly in placing a surtax on German goods to offset the surtax which Germany placed on our goods. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong! appears very solicitous for our farmers in connection with the export trade of Canada to Germany. But we should not lose sight of the fact that notwithstanding the surtax, our trade with Germany is greater than it was previous to the imposition of that surtax. In 1800 . we exported to Germany $507,000 worth of Canadian goods, both agricultural and manufactured. In 1891 we exported $532,000 worth. In 1892, $942,000; and in 1893 $750,000. And so on down to 1896 when we exported $757,000 worth. In 1898, when Germany placed a surtax on Canadian goods, we exported $1,837,000 worth to that country. When you look over the returns of the exports of this country to Germany, you will find that our trade with Germany has not been seriously affected by the German surtax, and I have no doubt that Germany, during the years previous to the present trade relations, was importing a large quantity of agricultural products. During those years their imports were just as great as to-day; and even though we had better trade relations then, our ex-

ports to the German market were not very great. I do not think that this is a question of much importance to Canada because our trade with Germany was very small even before the German surtax was placed on Canadian goods.
There is another side to the question. We know of the great advantages which Germany has in the way of manufacturing woollen and linen goods and a great many other lines of manufactured goods as well; and if we allow those goods to come into this country under any favourable arrangement such as the hon. member for Lamb-ton (Mr. Armstrong) advocates, we will have a slaughter market in Canada for goods made in Germany to the detriment of the Canadian manufacturer and the people who work in the Canadian factories and those who have their money invested in them.
I do not want to speak longer on this question. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) says we should not sit idle and should not allow this sort of thing to go on without expressing our views. Well, I do not propose to sit idle any longer on this question which the hon. gentleman raises from time to time. I do not see what else the government could have done than place a retaliatory surtax upon German goods. The only way by which we can get better trade relations with Germany is by cancelling our present preference to Great Britain, and I do not suppose that the Canadian people generally are anxious that should toe done.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the hon. member for Haldimand (Mr. Lalor) not think it possible for the government to so arrange the tariff that they could protect the woollen industry in which he is interested?


Mr. T. CHISHOLM (East Huron).: There is a very important question under consideration, the French treaty, and I think it would be well to give a little attention to that matter before taking up our trade relations with'Germany. As one of those who voted against the French treaty on a previous occasion, I wish to put myself right. It has been said that I voted against it because it bore the name French. I wish to inform the House that such a statement is absolutely unwarranted, and I think I made myself very plain with regard to the matter on a previous occasion. But that is the only argument they can bring up to counteract what I have to say in opposition to the treaty. In any treaty to he made witlj France, we should be disposed to give it our most favourable consideration. Our French Canadian compatriots have been very kind in supporting us in giving the British preference, and I feel that if any favour can be done to them, the very name French treaty would induce me to swallow
a great deal I would not otherwise accept. My objection to the French treaty was simply with regard to one or two items. I objected to the introduction of absinthe into this country, also to the introduction of imitation brandy, and my reason was that absinthe is one of the ingredients contained in those imitation brandies. To show the nature of the imitations, you can for about twenty cents buy a bottle of imitation brandy in France, while you have to pay twenty times that price for a bottle of the real stuff.
Now, I object to the introduction of these two things. When this matter first came up for consideration, I requested the government to make an effort to have these two things eliminated from the treaty. But I find them named in the schedule as receiving the benefits of our intermediate tariff. I hold that they should be prohibited altogether. It would appear that our French friends can get modifications made in the treaty which are expected to benefit them. They were able to exclude our fat cattle, and apparently our representatives were willing that these should be excluded. Could not our representatives seek modifications also and ask that absinthe be excluded from this country? When I last spoke I did not wish to take up the time of the House by reading from the documents then before me, not wishing to delay the House. But to-day I shall ask the House to listen to the reading of an article which appeared in the ' Daily Standard ' of 23rd of November, in regard to absinthe. I believe the people of Canada do not know what they are doing in allowing this poisonous drug to be brought into this country. The article to which I refer says;
Alarmed by the ravages of absinthe which is sapping the mental, moral and physical life of that nation, France is demanding a war of extermination upon the deadly drink.
The trades unions of the country, leading members of the Chamber of Deputies, prominent physicians, business men and statesmen are organizing a national petition, demanding that the manufacture and sale of absinthe be prohibited. In France, this insidious poisonous liquor is held responsible, in great part, for the decadence of the nation, its falling birth rate, hundreds of murders and the appalling number of insane.
Authorities among the petitioners assert that absinthe kills tens of thousands of people every year. More of it is consumed in France than in the rest of the world together, and it is causing epilepsy, tuberculosis, madness and crime.
Formerly one of the soberest of men, the Frenchman has now become the hdhviest drinker in the world. Brought to a per capita basis, he consumes each year liquors which contain no less than three and a half gallons of pure alcohol. The American consumes one and a third gallons.
As this estimate includes women, children and many men who do not drink, the con-

sumption by the drinking population of l'rance is, as may clearly be observed, somewhat startling. Alone, Paris swallows no fewer than 5,000 quarts of absinthe daily. It is estimated that at certain hours one-fifth of the entire population is engaged in drinking a liquor which is condemned by the entire medical world.
Belgium, long suffering from the same evil, has at last aroused. Its law-making body has just banished absinthe, in every shape and form from that country.
Absinthe is a liquor, the base of which is an alcoholic solution of certain essential oils derived from a number of plants. The chief source is a form of wormwood, or absinthium.
Other absinthe of inferior quality, is made from various herbs and essential oils, and adulterations are numerous and deleterious. As adulterants, turmeric and indigo, and, in some cases, sulphate of copper, have been used, chiefly for the production of the green colour in the lower grades.
And I may say that the green colour of absinthe has led to the name given to the liquor as ' the lady in green,' or, as some call it,' ' the curse of France.'
When excessively used, absinthe gives at first a feeling of accelerating intoxication. Later, the digestive organs are deranged, the appetite destroyed, then thirst, giddiness, ringing in the ears, hallucinations of sight, heavy mental oppression, anxiety, loss of brain power and - idiocy may succeed each other.- Encyclopedia.
Unquestionably, the effects of absinthe are far more harmful than those of whisky.
Alcoholic insanity, that is where the sufferer's mind is permanently unbalanced, is a comparative rarity. In France insanity from absinthe is common. For example, take fifty men and let them drink whisky steadily to excess, and fifty other men, under the same conditions, drinking absinthe.
I warrant that twenty or twenty-five of the latter will find their way to the madhouse, and I question whether in the same time one whisky drinker will have reached the insanity stage.
These statements were made a few years ago by Dr, Charles S. Potts, a specialist in nervous diseases. Dr. Horatio C. Wood, professor of materia medica and therapeutics in the University of Pennsylvania, had this to say: The effects of the decoction differ materially from those of pure alcohol drinks, though the percentage of alcohol in absinthe is greater than in almost any other intoxicant. This percentage ranges anywhere from 47-66 in the ordinary grades to 80-66 in the best Swiss absinthe.
You can judge what the effect will be when Switzerland also introduces her absinthe into this country, for in Switzerland, a great deal of absinthe is manufactured.
Effects manifest in an absinthe drinker constitute a series of symptoms designated as absinihism. Characteristic symptoms are restlessness at night, with disturbing dreams, great tremblings of hands and tongue, vertigo and the tendency to epileptiform convulsions.


Thomas Chisholm: A strange feature of this national evil which has fastened itself upon France is the fact that it has developed within the memory of many persons now alive.
And I fear that some now living will see the time when Canada also will be cursed with absintheism as France is today.
The drink first made its appearance in the country upon the close of the Algerian war in 1S47 or 1848. While in Algiers, the French soldiers adopted the custom of the natives in using the liquor to fight the low fever of that malarial climate, and they grew to like it so well that they carried it home with them.
Since then absinthe has been the steadily growing curse of the nation, says an authority, until now the French are the most nervous and excitable people under the sun.
Not only has the liqnour its effect upon the drinker, but, through him, makes a marked impression on the succeeding generations. It is for this reason more than any other that the French as a nation are deteriorating.
Vast quantities of absinthe are used in that country. The annual importation from Switzerland alone reaches over 2,000,000 gallons, while the French distilleries produce many times that quantity.
In addition to the 5,000 quarts that Paris drinks each day, the proportion, according to figures given by the Minister of Finance, is almost as great in the provinces. It is estimated that every 5,000,000 of the population drink 10,000 quarts of absinthe daily-and there are many drinks in a quart bottle.
So it has come to pass that the Frenchman, with his annual consumption of liquors that put into his stomach three and a half gallons of alcohol, is now the hardest drinker in the world.
A much heavier statistical burden rests upon the shoulders of the actual drinkers, as the figures quoted as per capita, including men and women who do not drink, as well as children.
In point of alcoholic consumption the Swiss and Belgian come next, with two and two-fifths gallons each annually. The Spaniard gets away with two and a third gallons; the Italian with just a little less: the Englishman and German two and one-tenth, and the American with one and a third gallons. The most abstemious man in the world, the Nor-weigan, consumes only half a gallon in a year.
Not only then do the French people drink more than any other people, but they drink the most harmful intoxicant that is made.
Government officials and thinking men of the republic have long recognized the baneful affects and growing extent of the evil, but so far have been powerless to limit either.
Absinthe manufacture has become such a profitable, and even respectable, pursuit that the proposed legislation against it has always failed.
Visitors to Paris frequently remark, that they see no drunkenness on the streets. Absinthe does not produce rowdyism or cause boisterous conduct. Its evil effects are subtle, quiet and insinuating.
One French characteristic of this drink habit, however, may be plainly noticeable to

the stranger, this is the arrival of the daily absinthe hour.
For the better classes-business men, clerks and similar workers-this is between 5 and 6 o'clock in the afternoon, when the man who has been confined at his desk or counter all day thinks he must have his appetizer on the eve of dinner.
Walking along the streets, if it be summer, one notices a warm, half-sickish, sweetish odour, somewhat resembling that of paregoric, filling the atmosphere.
Looking into the many cafes that line the street, the wondering visitor may perceive the source of this smell. Every drinking place is crowded; waiters rush about bearing bottles and glasses-Paris is busy drinking absinthe.
Those who take their liquor ' as gentlemen should ' have the bottles brought to them as they sit about the cafe talking. Each man pours his drink-from one to three inches- into a tall narrow tumbler.
Over the top of this is held a perforated spoon, containing a lump of sugar. Ice water is dropped upon the sugar and allowed to trickle through into the liquid beneath until the glass is full.
Prepared in this way, absinthe is pleasant, and seems harmless to smell and taste. Nor are its immediate effects those of brandy or whisky. In fact, the immediate effects are scarcely discernible in any way.
For another class, the workmen-there are usually three drinking periods in the day, and these are recognized by employers.
At 10 o'clock in the morning the French labourer invariably lays down his implements of toil and hastens to the nearest drink shop for his absinthe. He does the same thing twice during the afternoon.
Wherever workmen are found in numbers there are generally plenty of drinking shops in the vicinity. Near where some large excavation is in progress or some big building being erected, it is not uncommon to see little canvas covered wagons or carts. Very often these may be presided over by women whose husbands are foremen in the nearest works.
The workman cannot take his absinthe with the degree of comfort enjoyed by the more prosperous or leisurely citizens. There are no chairs-he would not have time to sit down if there were.
One after another these men walk up to the cart, gulp down the poison which they erringly ' take for the good of the heart anil stomach,' and go back to their labours.
Plenty of credit may be had until Saturday night, and he may take as large a drink as lie likes. His ' bracer ' costs him three or four cents a glass.
It is not good absinthe, as a rule, that these unfortunates drink, but the vilest and most dangerous imitations. They know this very well, saying that pure absinthe is not for the poor man but for the rich.
His drink does not make the labourer jovial or light-hearted, any more than it makes the wealthier consumer in the gilded cafes boisterous. He goes back to his work morosely, and labours in solemn silence.
Then come two more drinks during the afternoon, and a fourth, probably, as he goes wearily homeward at night. His legs are not
affected, but horrible visions are forming in the weakened brain.
It is a curious thing that the absinthe drinker, especially among the lower classes, feels an acute sense of personal oppression under the spell of the insidious poison.
He hates everybody: the hand of every man is against him. Even his wife and his children are intriguing to destroy his peace and happiness.
When he passes the home of the wealthy man he mutters in anger-he is without a cent in his pocket because the rich steal it all. If he can jostle rudely a well dressed man or woman wThile on his way, the act gives him a savage sort of pleasure; ordered to move on by a policeman, an insane desire to kill the uniformed representative of law swells up in his heart.
Not long ago, labouring under the hallucination ' due to absinthe ' that his wife was not faithful to him, a Paris labourer killed her and their child. [DOT]
' Absinthe ' said Senator Beranger recently,
' is responsible for the depopulation of the country and for more than two-thirds of the . crime committed.' Even the judges who deal with criminal cases recognize the fact that to be a confirmed victim of ' absinthism ' is a reason for almost any crime.
There are many dens throughout the poorest quarters of Paris where the wretched absinthe victim, sunk to the lowest depths of degradation, may h&ve a glass of poison for two cents, and may be permitted the use of a dark corner in which to sleep.
Such haunts-and this is a sad commentary upon the gratification of human curiosity- are among the show places of that remarkable city. Professional guides conduct parties of tourists to these resorts iu order that they may witness the fallen humanity at its deepest and darkest level.
As the visitors usually tip the proprietor liberally, he welcomes them with greater pleasure than he does the trembling wretches who come to buy his wares. They may gaze upon sin and misery to their heart's content.
One never sees evidences of merry-making or light-heartedness in these haunts of depravity. Everything is suggestive of hopeless misery. Men and women may he thereat least they were men and women at one time but are now simply absinthe drunkards through whose feeble brains the shadows of weird dreams are creeping.
But once in the grip of absinthe the victim is seldom able to set himself free. He will do anything to obtain money to purchase it. Not infrequently guides on the Alps have been known to murder tourists in their care in order to obtain money for this purpose.
Whether it is the result of bad example or not,_ the neighbours of France are drinking absinthe much more heavily than formerly, not without appreciable results. While the population of Belgium for instance has increased 30 per cent during the last 15 years, the consumption of alcohol has increased 37 per cent during the same period. Cases of insanity there have increased in number 45 per cent, suicides 80 per cent, and arrests for begging and vagabondage 150 per cent.
It was a recognition of the danger into which their country was steadily moving that


Mr. J. J. DONNELLY (South Bruce).: When introducing this measure to-day, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) told us in effect that after the representatives of this government and the representatives of the French government had arranged the terms of the treaty, the members of the French Senate were afraid that its terms would permit the finished product of the stock raisers of this country to enter into France and compete with the finished products of the stock raisers of France. They pressed for and secured an amendment Mr. T. CHISHOLM
which would allow only the lean cattle, or what you might call the raw material of the stock raisers of this country to enter into France. I was somewhat surprised that the minister passed over this change in the treaty as though it were of little or no importance. To me it appears that this alteration in the treaty removes the only part of it that might be of any benefit to the agricultural interests of this country. The fact that the members of the French Senate were so anxious to exclude our fat cattle is an evidence to me that under favourable conditions we might reasonably expect to find a market for our fat cattle in that country. I wish to ent-r my protest against having the agricultural interests of this country sacrificed in order that the manufacturers of our country may obtain an increased market for their output or in order that the people of France may find here in Canada a market for their wines, perfumes and other produce.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker this treaty is surely not - above criticism, but we are told perfection is superhuman. Even admitting, as contended a moment ago by the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm)-that in consequence, noxious liquors, such as absinthe and the like, will be introduced into this country, as a compensation we will have those good French wines. Although* imperfect, that treaty has evidently its good points. On account of it we will be more favourably known abroad, and our business intercourse with France will be more active. At any rate,
I do not think Canada will lose anything by it.
Now, that treaty is drawn pretty much on the same lines as that which as carried through by the Conservative government in 1893. If the treaty of 1893 was beneficial on the whole, I think this treaty also must have its good points. The fact of its having been negotiated by the hon. gentlemen opposite is not in itself an argument against its, adoption.
It has been stated that it will stand in the way of the granting of the preference which we are seeking to obtain from the mother country. The preferential tariff as we have it to-day is a one-sided arrangement, of very little advantage to us. At' all events, should the preferential arrangement be of any actual value, it will always be up to us, once it has been secured, to denounce the treaty. In fact, there is a clause in the treaty to that effect. Section 3 contains, among other things, the following:
It shall enter into force immediately after the carrying out of that formality, and shall so remain for a perod of ten years, unless however one of the contracting parties notifies the other of its intention to

cancel the agreement, in which case this agreement will cease to operate twelve months after the receipt hy the other party of said notification.
Supposing a preferential agreement were entered into with the mother country, not a one-sided' arrangement, but a preferential treaty actually on lines of reciprocity, it will be seen from the above quotation that there will always be an opportunity to cancel the French treaty which we are called upon to sanction today. To my mind, such an objection is without foundation.
Now, that treaty with France was concluded in good faith at a time when the Payne tariff had not yet been enacted in the United States. That tariff having been enacted in the meantime, I really do not believe that the ratification of this treaty would have the effect of indu<cip,g our neighbours to enforce their maximum tariff against our goods, not any more than the ratification of the treaty of 1893 brought about reprisals on their part. So that we should not be prevented from voting in favour of the ratification of the treaty by any fear of that kind.
As to our future intercourse with the United States, I may say that this government having at their disposal every means of getting information has no doubt in this respect taken the necessary steps, and should such reprisals on the part of the United States follow the ratification of this treaty, the government will bear the responsibility.
I am therefore favourable to the immediate ratification of this agreement, and I shall vote in its favour, not on the ground of sentiment, but on that of business.


Mr. W. S. MIDDLEBRO (North Grey).: Mr. Sneaker, in considering a question of this kind, the paramount consideration should be the commercial advantage that we are to obtain bv the ratification of the treaty-as compared with the injury that mav be entailed. In determining this we should examine closely the present state of trade between the two countries and the possibility of increasing the same with an increasing advantage to this country. What is the present state of our trade with France? We have an export trade to France amounting to $3,176,000 and an import trade from France amounting to something over $8,000,000 a little over a million of which is on the free list. We start out with a handicap because we are going to conclude a treaty with a country which now sends us at least twice the value of goods we send them. And speaking gener-allv. other things being equal, that country is going to attain a greater advantage under such a commercial treaty than we are. Another view which should enter into the negotiation of treaties is the prospective profit which may accrue to us, and in that connection let me ask what are we going to gain by the ratification of this treaty with France? Are we going to increase to any extent the exports of our agricultural products to France? I think not. Our export of wheat to France has not exceeded 60,000 bushels a year until last year and our export of agricultural implements has not increased by more than 25 per cent, and today it stands at about $850,000 worth. We export to France about $1,000,000 worth of lobsters and what advantage is this treaty going to give us in that respect? I should think none whatever, because if I am correctly informed we have now all the market we want for our product- of lobsters and there is even a deficiency to supply the local demand. Under these circumstances, I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to tell me in what wav we are going to benefit by the ratification of this treaty. We might have benefited had we been permitted to send into France our fat cattle, but the French republic recognized that if they applied the minimum tariff to Canadian fat cattle that was a matter in which Canada would get a benefit, so she immediately withdrew that concession and said that the maximum tariff should apply on Canadian fat cattle exported to France. I am, therefore, I think, fair in saying that so far as the agricultural classes of Canada are concerned they will get no benefit whatever from the ratification of this treaty. Now to the republic to the south of us we exported $92,000,000 worth of goods during the last fiscal year and we imported from the United States [DOT] $192,000,000 worth of goods. I quite agree with the Minister of Finance when he says that Canada has reached such a stage in her nationhood that in making these treaties we should make them to suit ourselves. With that idea in mind it is our bounden duty to look first to the benefits we will receive. I do not know whether or not the passage of this treaty with France is going to entail an extra 25 per cent duty on all products exnorted by Canada to the United States, but I do say there is a risk of that, and I also say that the risk of having a 25 per cent duty put upon $92,000,000 worth of our exports is not to be compensated by the trivial advantage we may possibly attain from a possible increase of our present trade with France. And, there is another question looming up which should be considered by us. We know that for years in the motherland her statesmen have been worshipping at the shrine of the Manchester school and we know that twenty years ago any man in England who advocated anything but free trade would be considered a mental ineom-petent. However, a change has come, and we find that to-day there are seventy or eighty tariff reformers in the British House of Commons, and that there is a great

battle on between tariff reform and free trade. I make bold to say that while the tariff reformers may not succeed at the approaching election-and there is a possibility that they will succeed-they will succeed ere long, and then we will be in a position to obtain mutual preferential trade with Great Britain. Therefore it behooves us not to tie ourselves up with these treaties and not to put ourselves in the position of passing this treaty to-day which will give a number of other nations most favoured terms without any corresponding return. It is, in view of this possibility, of considerable consequence that we should be free from these restrictions'. It is quite true, as has been pointed out, that the treaty may be denounced upon twelve months' notice being given, but we all know that when you denounce a treaty, a great deal more ill-feeling is caused than if the treaty never were made. Therefore, if we pass this treaty now, and later on when we have an opportunity of negotiating with Great Britain for mutual preferential trade, we shall have to denounce this treaty, a good deal of ill-feeling may be thus created in France. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not the ratification of this treaty which gives to all these other nations most favoured treatment in Canada, will make them give to us the same favoured terms on Canadian goods entering their markets? I would like to ask also whether or not since this treaty was passed in 1907, the French government have in any way interfered with or raised their minimum tariff, because, if they did, that would be another reason for us refusing to ratify the treaty now. If it is also true that these other favoured nations which get these favoured terms in our markets are not compelled to give us a corresponding advantage in their markets, that is another reason why we should refuse to ratify this treaty.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: I do not know that I would have said anything on this question had it not been for the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Huron (Mr. Chisholm) in reference to the importation of absinthe. I do not think any one disputes the evils of the absinthe habit, and I should think that .everybody would prevent, if they could, the introduction of such an evil into Canada. The impression may be created by the words of the hon. member (Mr. Chisholm) that this treaty contributes to the introduction of absinthe into this country and that its ratification may lead to the evils 'which he described. Let me say, Sir, that that is an entirely erroneous conception of the scope of the treaty. There is nothing in this treaty which will facilitate the importation of absinthe into Canada, and Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
there is nothing in this treaty which in any way hampers Canada in placing any duties upon absinthe which she may deem fit, or which prevents Canada from absolutely prohibiting in the future the importation of absinthe. I wish to make this clear, and I shall read the clauses of the treaty which bear on this matter. In clause three of the treaty there is this:
The natural and manufactured products enumerated in schedule B of this convention originated in France, Algeria, the French colonies and possessions, and the territories and the protectorate of Indo-China, shall enjoy on their importation into Canada the benefit of the intermediate tariff and of the lowest rates of customs duties applicable to like products of other foreign origin.
Now, schedule B of this treaty is the list of those French products which have the benefit of the intermediate tariff. That list refers to the different items of our tariff, amongst others to item 156, in which there is a long list of various spirituous liquors. Amongst those liquors is absinthe. That means that under this treaty absinthe, along with other spirituous liquors, will enjoy the benefit of the intermediate tariff of Canada. But when you come to examine our tariff, what is the duty on that particular item? It is this: The British preferential tariff, $2.40; the intermediate tariff, $2.40; the general tariff against all countries, $2.40. The item in the tariff includes the following:
Ethyl alcohol, or the substance commonly known as alcohol, hydrated oxide of ethyl or spirits of wine, n.o.p.; gin of all kinds, n.o.p.; rum, whisky and all spirituous or alcoholic liquors, n.o.p.; amyl alcohol or fusel oil, or any substance known as potato spirit or potato oil; methyl alcohol, wood alcohol, wood naphtha, pyroxylic spirit or any substance known as wood spirit or methylated spirits, absinthe, arrack or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p.; cordials and liqueurs of all kinds, n.o.p.; mescal, pulque, rum, schrub, schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p.; containing more than 40 per cent of proof spirit, per gallon of the strength of proof.
That is the item of our tariff, and the duties against these articles in all the three schedules of the tariff are exactly the same. They will be the same under the new French treaty as they were under the old French treaty, and exactly the same as they would have been if this treaty were not in existence. Therefore, the impression which has been sought to be created, I have no doubt quite honestly but entirely erroneously, that this treaty is creating a new facility for the introduction of absinthe and other spirituous liquors into Canada is entirely wrong. Furthermore, there is nothing in this treaty

to prevent this parliament raising or lowering those duties at any time; or, if we choose, we can prohibit the importation of any one or all of these spirituous liquors into Canada from Prance and all other countries- and this treaty does not hamper Canada or prevent us making such a prohibition. I think it well that this House and the people of Canada should understand that in this respect this treaty makes no change, so that no false impression as to the action of this government mav be created. My hon. friend has referred to the fact that under this treaty fat cattle will no longer have the advantage of the minimum tariff on entering Prance. That is true. It is possible that may at some future day not facilitate a trade with France in fat cattle. But what are the conditions? For the last three years no fat cattle, no cattle of any sort, from Canada, have landed in France. In the future we are going to have the advantage, important or not important as the case may he, that cattle which are not ready for slaughter will have an entry into France under their minimum tariff. Without the treaty we would not have this advantage. If there is any benefit from that, we get it; if there is no benefit, it does not harm us to have the opportunity of that advantage. It happens that our greatest rival in France in that respect is the United States. It happens that until lately the United States have had a treaty with France, a small one it is true, which has lately been abrogated; and until they make another treaty which would give them the same advantages that we get, this treaty will give Canada an advantage over the United States in the French market, which may be sufficient to enable us to get the trade, instead of our neighbours to the south. My hon. friend from Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) has talked of agricultural implements. It is true that in the last few years we have sent about $750,000 worth of agricultural implements to France. I have no doubt that if this treaty comes into force, immediately the splendid establishments for the manufacture of agricultural implements in Canada will be able to get complete control of the French market, and will be able to oust from that market their rivals in the United States. This is an advantage which the farmers and everybody else in Canada will rejoice to see.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman tell us what advantage we will have in the French market as compared with the United States, if this treaty is passed?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We shall have the advantage of the minimum tariff, whereas the United States will have the disadvantage of the maximum tariff. This is a very substantial advantage to the manufacturers of 24
agricultural implements in this country. Hon. gentlemen opposite appear to be somewhat divided in regard to the German treaty. I do not think the time to discuss that is when the French treaty is under consideration. Our conduct and action in regard to the German treaty has been abundantly endorsed by the people of Canada over and over again. And I do not see any reason to regret it, although at the same time acknowledging clearly, as I do, from my own personal conviction ah all events, that the removal of the restrictions upon trade will be likely to redound to our advantage. And if we can remove restrictions upon trade with France or Germany or Italy or any other country with which we can make satisfactory trade relations, I personally will rejoice, because I consider that any restrictions upon trade are only justified where they are absolutely necessary for other purposes and other reasons. Fear has 'been expressed that this treaty may interfere with future possible _ mutual preference within the empire. I think that the action of the government of Canada with regard to preference within the empire was the right and proper one. I think that Canada took the lead in that respect, which the other countries of the empire are gradually likely to follow. I find that in England where to-day the tariff reform is under discussion, there is a tendency to minimize the question of preference to the colonies or outside dominions, and that straight protection is becoming morq and more the watchword of the tariff reformers. Well, that is for them to consider and for them to decide and not for us to meddle with. But to my mind the Canadian plan of preference is the best one, and bargaining between the different parts of the empire is not likely to lead to satisfaction. _ Each dominion must deal with the other in accordance with its own views. That system, which was inaugurated in 1897 and which .is maintained and carried out in Canada to-day, has received universal acceptance throughout the empire and is admitted to be the best and only sound plan of preference within the empire.
In answer to the hon. member for Grey (Mr. Middlebro) I find that as regards agricultural machinery, the difference between the minimum and the general tariff is as nine to fifteen.


Mr. HENDERSON.: What is it in dollars and cents?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Six francs or $1.20.


David Henderson: For how much?
Mr.. FISHER. Per hundred kilograms.
A kilogram is 220 pounds. I cannot offhand give the difference in percentage, but the minimum is to the maximum as three to five.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln).: With regard to this measure, I must say a few words in answer to the hon. the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) because I do not take the same view of the matter. The hon. minister says that we should make our own treaties and have regard to what is best to the interests of Canada without worrying about what other countries may think. That is a very good theory hut it is not carried out in this treaty. Nobody on behalf of the government has said anything about the merits of this treaty. All they say is that they made a bargain two years ago-which I thought was a very bad bargain and which I had the temerity to vote against-and that we should now ratify it. But the bargain is now still a worse one. The French Republic rejected the treaty .we first negotiated and wanted better terms. They wanted to prevent Canadian cattle from being sent into their country. They wanted to put an additional embargo on our fat cattle. If that were the only reason, it would be a good one for voting against this treaty. But that is not the only trouble. If we are going to adopt the principle that we should make treaties in the interests of Canada, we should have some evidence that the well-being of Canada is being served by this treaty. But what do we find? We find that we made a bargain, and -were called upon to vote for that bargain because the government saw fit to make it. But the French government asked for a modification of that bargain, and forsooth -we must agree to it. In that respect we are not carrying out the theory of the Minister of Finance that we should make our bargains from a Canadian standpoint. .
When the Minister of Agriculture spoke about certain intoxicating and other spirits brought in here, I was hoping that he would give us the whole information and tell us about the cheap wines to be brought in by virtue of this treaty at a reduced rate, and which will have the effect of putting out of business to a great extent the laro-e interest of grape-growing. If we are to have cheap wines, it is worth something to know that we are drinking honest Canadian -wine, made from grapes grown here, produced under our own eyes, inspected by our own government inspectors, which . are not injurious, which cannot be fraudulently marked and packed, rather than foreign wines about which we necessarily know very little, but which we know are impregnated frequently with some of the very things_ the Minister of Agriculture savs are injurious and are not interfered with in any new way by this treaty. Those are shortly some of the reasons -why I opposed the treaty two years ago. What reply have we to the arguments. advanced by the hon. member for East Huron (Mr. Chisholm), and South Bruce (Mr. Donnelly) Mr. FISHER.
with regard to the cattle industry? Simply this, that whether the bargain be a much worse one than two years ago or not, the fact that it is presented to us by the government ought to suffice. The Minister of Agriculture did not appear to be at all concerned about the merits of the treaty but appeared to think that as it has been negotiated by the government and as the government had consented to the modification proposed by the French Republic there was nothing more to be said.
For the reasons I have mentioned and because this is a much worse bargain than the one made two years ago I shall be obliged to vote against the second reading.


Mr.   .JOSEPH PIERRE TURCOTTE@Quebec County: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker,- allow me to explain briefly my personal views on the question which is now under consideration before this House. Two years ago the Canadian parliament ratified the main convention respecting the commercial relations between France and Canada. Since then, general elections were held in this country, and I do not think that a single one of the members who then voted in favour of the ratification of that treaty has been subjected, to the least blame at the hands of the electorate.
Now, as this treaty is already ratified, there only remains to ratify the supplementary convention. I would he curious to know in what position we should find ourselves were we to refuse ratifying this convention. Is it not true that it would result in bringing again into question everything done so far by parliament and in putting an end to the treaty itself? I have come to this conclusion that it is our duty to ratify the measure voted upon by the House two years ago, a measure which the people did approve of at the general elections, and which the French Chambers themselves did sanction at the beginning of this year. Otherwise, we would have to fall back on the convention of 1893.
The question now under discussion is whether the supplementary convention which is before us is so detrimental to our interests that we should undo or abrogate what we have done so far in connection with the main convention.
It is true that the supplementary convention involves a change in the commercial convention of September 19. 1907, but should such a modification prevent us from ratifying the treaty? I do not think so. That modification is the consequence of the -general policy of the French government. Their policy is one of strenuous protection, while we are living under a regime of mitigated protection. It is easily understood that when it was proposed to give a preference to the products of the farm, as for example, in the case of animals in fat condition for butchery; the French agricultural interests were alarmed

by those concessions to Canada and they made representations to the members of the French Chamber of Deputies and of the Senate against that provision of the treaty which was threatening their interests. Such was the capital objection raised against the treaty. It was. held, on good ground, that such a preference which was being granted to the Canadian agriculturists would result in creating a most detrimental competition to the French peasant. Undoubtedly, the shipping to the French market of cattle fattened on our farms would have dealt a very severe blow to similar products of the agricultural French industry. I see here a compliment paid to our Canadian farmer, to his enterprise and his activitv.
The alarm felt was well grounded and justifiable. The granting of a preferential tariff to the Canadian farmer was withheld, in order not to trouble the economy of French agricultural interests. I believe that such a policy, considered from the standpoint of protection, such as it is being applied in France, is warranted. I am one of those who approve of the position taken by the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) and by the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur), who both represented us in France, as concerns their agreeing to that supplementary convention.
As the withholding of assent to that convention would have resulted in bringing us back to the convention of 1893, our plenipotentiaries, as the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Nantel) has well said, have acted with wisdom in following the footsteps of their predecessors, and endeavouring to enlarge our commercial relations with France, in proportion to the immense development taken by our trade, our manufacturing and agricultural industries, during the last fifteen years. Our government have so well grasped the situation that they were the first to open negotiations and to take such necessary steps as were calculated to meet the needs of our trade.
On the other hand, we could hardly expect to reap all the benefits accruing from that convention, without giving anything in return. What we have received is some compensation for what we did give. I agree that we do not gain any new advantage as concerns the export of our cattle in fat condition for the butchery, but neither did we lose anything, seeing that we remain under the regime created by the treaty of 1893, with the hope, as expressed by the minister, of bettering our position in a more or less remote future.
Meanwhile, we ought to benefit by the lesson which our French cousins have been teaching to such of us who represent here rural constituencies. Let no opportunity pass without our endeavouring to promote the interests of our constituents, of that 24i	.
agricultural class which constitute the sinews and backbone of the country and to whom are entrusted the primordial rights of our social and political economy.
Further, let us Temember that this treaty confers upon us advantages which largely make up for the apparent loss of benefits as respects our farm products. If it be true that the failure to ratify this supplementary convention would result in placing us again under the regime of the treaty of 1893, it is altogether out of the question that we would lose at once the benefits accruing to us from the main treaty as regards French literature, whether under that name come in sciences, law or political economy, whether it relates to works of fiction, &e. Thanks to our plenipotentiaries, under the new treaty we enjoy that advantage which Great Britain alone so far had been enjoying under the preferential tariff. Henceforward, the duty on literature of a lighter character, such as works of fiction printed in France are to pay 15 per cent, instead of the former rate of 25 per cent. As to works of a more serious character, books f science and political economy, the duty of 10 per cent is reduced to 5 per cent. It is then a foregone conclusion that henceforth French literature and English literature are to be placed at our disposal under identical conditions, and so we shall receive light from the two most powerful centres of intellectual activity in this twentieth century.	.
This provision is of an immense value to us from the standpoint of the intellectual development of our youth, the more so as nowadays those literary works of first necessity are out of our reach in this country. We have had so far to. go to the fountain-heads of science, art and literature to supply our wants. Thanks to the lowered duties, all that wealth shall henceforth be within our r.each.
I may be allowed to say further, in this connection, that outside of France itself, Canada is tne only country in the world where those treasures of the French genius can be thoroughly appreciated. Therefore, in addition to such material advantages, we shall enjoy invaluable benefits in the intellectual sphere.
It behooves-us therefore to ratify the supplementary convention to the French Canadian treaty, within the shortest time, so as to fully benefit- by this treaty.


Mr. EUGENE PAQUET (L'lslet).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, on February 28, 1908, during the debate concerning our commercial relations with France, I went over the grounds which induced me to give my sup-nort to the Franco-Canadian treaty. Consequently, in rising to address the House, I only intend to say a few words on the question.
The opposition discharged their duty in

calling the attention of the government to the dangers to the country from an undue haste in the ratification of the treaty. Should the attitude of the government be such as to disturb our commercial relations, they will have to shoulder the responsibility for such action.
I do not approve of the convention, as a French Canadian anxious to enlarge our trade relations with our old mother country, but I approve of it as a French Canadian, sincerely believing that this Franco-Canadian treaty will promote the growth of our trade with France.
In 1898, our trade with France amounted to $5,000,000. During the last fiscal year that trade reached as high a figure as $11,204,902.
The Argentine Republic exports to France products to the value of $80,000,000. Does that same republic receive from France a more favourable treatment than is granted to Canada? Why should not our exports to France reach as high a figure as $80,000,000?
I firmly believe that this convention shall result in promoting our trade with France and in increasing our relations with that country, from an intellectual as well as from a material standpoint, to quote the appropriate words uttered by the bon. member for Quebec (Mr. Tureotte). Should we increase our trade relations with France financiers will come over to Canada in order to investigate our natural resources, the great value of which they cannot fail to duly appreciate. French capitalists may also be induced to invest their capital in this country, for the development of our facilities of transportation between France and Canada. The development of our trade and our facilities of transportation, a wise investment of French Capua*. are efficacious means of promoting a sound French immigration. Such are the ideas and the opinion which I have formerly given expression to and nothing since has occurred to induce me to change my mind.
On these several grounds, I shall record my vote in favour of the Franco'-Canadian treaty.
At six o'clock, House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS.

House resumed at eight o'clock.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 42) respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company.-Mr. Cash.	.
Bill (No. 43) respecting the Hudson Bay Insurance Company.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 44) respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company-Mr. Ethier.
Eugène Paquet: Bill (No. 45) respecting the Phoenix As- [DOT] surance Company, Limited.-Mr. Macdonald.
Bill (No. 46) to incorporate the Pine Pass Railway Company.-Mr. W. H. White.



THE FRANCO-CANADIAN TREATY.

[Stage Direction]
The order for Private Bills being exhausted, House resumed the debate on second reading of Bill (No. 12) respecting a certain supplementary convention between His Majesty and the president of the French Republic.
Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL (Dauphin).: I had no intention of taking part in the debate on this, motion until I heard the Minister of Finance speak of the change that had been insisted upon by the French authorities in regard to the importation of cattle. I come here, Sir, as a farmer representing farmers, and I can flatter myself that perhaps I know as much about the beef industry as any man in this House. And knowing that, I know that the Minister of Finance should have had with him, at the time when he agreed to that change, a chaperone or a caretaker. I made a note of a question which 1 intended to submit to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher). But when that lion, gentleman spoke, I expected that as the member of the Cabinet specially charged with the conservation of the interests of the farmers, he would have stated that he did not approve of this particular clause in the treaty. But I was surprised to note the airy manner in which the hon. minister put aside this phase of the treaty referring to the cattle industry. His argument is virtually this:	In the
past Canada has not entered into the market of France in the matter of beef cattle, and therefore it matters not that the maximum tariff is charged against the beef cattle we desire to ship to that country. The hon. gentleman surely did not consider for a moment the difference in duty charged under the maximum and the minimum tariff. The maximum is $27 per 1,000 pounds, and the minimum is $18, a difference of $9 per 1,000 pounds, or an average of about $15 per steer. Surely, no man in his senses will say that that is not a matter of very vital importance. Perhaps, coming as I do from the west, I realize more than the Minister of Agriculture does what the beef trade means to Canada. Let me point out what evidently the hon. member does not know. The export trade in beef cattle in Manitoba commenced in 1882, when one shipment was made of two cars of 42 head, of a total value of about $1,500. In the years from 1900 to the present day, the annual shipments from Manitoba and the west have been between 50,000 and 100,000 head, of a value of from $1,750,000 to $2,750,000. This trade, already of such

large proportions, is growing year by year, and it must be taken care of. To take care of it in the proper way it is requisite that the government should take every opportunity to find a market for pur products, and here was an opportunity to open a market for our surplus beef cattle. Let me call your attention for a moment to what has been done in the United States, in Chicago alone. In 1865, the Chicago market handled only some 600 head of cattle. Last year the Chicago market handled over 4,000,000 head of cattle. The growth that has taken place in forty years in Chicago is only a small example of the growth that is going to take place in the Canadian west in the next forty years, for the Canadian west is growing very much more rapidly in every branch of trade than even the United States did. The Minister of Agriculture argues at one time in one way and at another time in another way. Where he is speaking to farmers instead t>f to the lawgivers of this House he would not for a moment advocate the doctrine that through this treaty Canadians would be able to sell in the markets of France their stocker cattle. By stocker cattle, I mean cattle that are not finished. If he were speaking to agriculturists in this country he would tell them that the proper way to get the greatest benefit in the cattle industry is to finish the cattle here, use Canadian feed, and put them on the market not one moment sooner than they are absolutely ripe, and will fetch the greatest possible price. That is what he will say to the farmers speaking as Minister of Agriculture. But he tells this House, and I think we are justified in saying that he misleads this House when he says it, that it is a good thing that the French stocker market is left open to us, and that we have an. advantage in that market over our American competitors. He did not tell the House, when he was speaking of the American competition, that we are sure to be up against it, that three years ago Secretary Root and Ambassador Jusserand, the French representative at Washington, had made a provisional arrangement of a reciprocal character wherein France agreed to afford to the United States several advantages:	first, the admission of American
meats upon a guarantee of their purity and soundness made in compliance with the meat inspection laws; secondly, the admission of American cattle for slaughter with- in ten days after arrival; thirdly, authority to transport American cattle through French territory, more considerate treatment of American salt meat imports, and greater leniency in the regulations for the entry of American imports generally. This arrangement still holds good between France and the United States, so it means that without any treaty Secretary Root and the
French ambassador have agreed that Americans should have just as good if not better terms for their farmers and their producers than the Canadian government have procured for our farmers by this much vaunted treaty. It seems to me that the Minister of Agriculture, when he speaks on these subjects, should take the same stand at all times. He cannot prove to the farmers of this country what he tried to make good in his argument here to-day. I think he should be honest when he makes an argument in this House with regard to-a matter of that kind. So, Sir, for that reason alone, if there were no other, I as a farmer, knowing the possibilities of the great west, will vote against this treaty if I have an opportunity. It is a matter of the greatest importance to the Canadian farmer, particularly in the west, that the future of this great cattle industry should be protected at all hazards. . Why should we not follow the example of France in this matter? France saw the danger, and insisted on the protection of her farmers. Why should we not follow her example and insist on protecting our farmers when we make a treaty with France? Let me mention that in Chicago, the cattle industry of which I have already spoken, the live stock industry to-day exceeds in importance the grain industry of that great centre, the lumber industry, and the wholesale grocery business combined. That shows the immense proportions of the live stock industry in Chicago, which is the great centre of that industry in the United States, just as Winnipeg is of the Canadian west. Therefore I urge that care should be exercised in this regard by our government when signing treaties with foreign governments.
Another matter to which I wish to refer is that even under this minimum rate the Finance Minister had to admit that Canada had nothing whatever to do with the inspection of cattle when they land in France. Canada has nothing to say as to whether these cattle shall he considered as belonging to one class or another, it is left solely to the discretion of the French officials to say what treatment shall be accorded to shippers from Canada. Surely it would have been fair to provide that Canada should have a representative on the board of inspection, and I think the government was guilty of a great oversight in that respect. But knowing the record of this government in the past in the one treaty they have negotiated with a foreign country, the treaty with Japan, I do not wonder at their relegating to the authorities of another government the say-so with regard to what shall be or what shall not be done in the protection of our own interests.
In concluding, I desire to express a word of sympathy with my hon. friend for Centre Huron (Mr. Chisholm) in all he said of the

necessity of prohibiting the importation of absinthe. I intended to go fully into that matter, but as my hon. friend took up most of the points connected with it, I will add nothing more about it on this occasion. Mr. Speaker, I have pointed out several strong reasons why I intend to vote against this treaty. I think it is up to every representative of an agricultural constituency to lay aside his partyism and to remember that he is here representing the farmers whose interests it is- his duty to conserve, and the best way he can conserve them is to vote against this treaty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When this treaty was passed two years ago I thought that very slight benefits were likely to accrue to Canada under its operation. In sizing it up, however, I reached the, conclusion that if it was likely to be of any benefit to the agriculturists of Canada, it was in the privilege of introducing into that country our fat cattle. I scarcely expected that we would ever succeed in establishing a trade in stackers with France, because of the distance and other disadvantages that we would have to overcome.
But I would think that there might come a time when from either the importation of cattle disease into Canada or its outbreak in Canada, our cattle might be shut out from England entirely and would also be shut out from the United States. It seemed to me desirable to have some other string to our bow, some other market to which, in case of extreme need, we might be able to send our cattle, and I thought that although it might not be of much advantage it might afford an alternative market for our fat cattle. For that reason and that reason alone I supported the treaty. I did so with a good deal of reluctance because from my casual examination and all 1 could learn I thought it was going to be of very little benefit to Canada; but now, since the French people have amended that treaty and our own Finance Minister and the government of Canada have been consenting parties to those amendments, to a practical repeal of the very clause in the treaty above all others that would be of value to the agriculturists of Canada, I do not see any justification for supporting that treaty. Looking over the whole field of possible trade with France, there seemed to be but one line in which we could hope to derive any benefit from this treaty, and that is in the exportation of agricultural implements and our manufacturers of implements are not doing a very large trade there now.
Examining this treaty and recalling the history of the present government's treaty makng, I do not wonder that Canada derives little benefit because all their efforts heretofore at negotiations with other countries for the purpose of extending the Mr. CAMPBELL.
markets of Canada or securing for Canada better markets than she has, nave resulted in one-sided, jug-handled arrangements. In 1897 they started off by throwing off part of the duty on English goods, giving a preference to- England. That action was proclaimed all over the world as some wonderful act of great statesmanship, great prescience, great knowledge that was to bring some wonderful financial result to Canada. What has been the practical result of that course? It practically killed our woollen trade in Canada, closed up nearly all our woollen mills, threw the artisans employed in these mills out of employment, reduced the market for Canadian wool and swept away the greater part of the hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in the woollen trade of Canada. Yet this government have absolutely refused since to do anything to help that crippled industry. Which side derived the advantage from that one-sided arrangement? Not Canada. It is true that England got an advantage but Canada received no advantage, from it whatever. I was rather amused to-night to hear the Minister of Agriculture say: I was in England and I found everybody satisfied, remarkably well pleased with what we had done, it was the very thing that suited them. Why would it not suit them? They received the whole advantage and we got nothing in return. The Minister of Agriculture went to England and discussing reciprocal preferential trade said that what we did we did voluntarily and of our own free will and accord, we did it for England's sake, we did not want anything in return, did not ask for a duty on grain imported from other countries, while ours got the freedom of the market, or anything else, and he asked them not to give us any preference in their markets over any other country in the world. Is it any wonder that they were satisfied? They were satisfied and he was satisfied. He thought he represented the whole Dominion of Canada, when if he had gone among the farmers of Canada they would have regarded him as one of Mark Twain's innocents abroad.
Before the Liberals came into power they said that the Conservative party were trying to find markets everywhere in the world except right at home, at our very door, where there was a market of 85,000,000 people. They said that if they were returned to power they would secure, by their sunny ways and their .statesmanship, this market of 85,000,000 people that would be more valuable than any market that could be secured anywhere else in the world. They were returned to power but did not make any effort to secure that market and apparently have no desire to secure it. Have they ever attempted to secure it except on the one occasion when they went to Washington, for which trip Canada paid ,

$35,000 or $40,000? They came home with their heads down and we never heard a word about it. They made no success of their efforts there and only demonstrated how unsuited they were for carrying on negotiations with any country in the world in the interests of Canada. The arrangement they made with England was onesided and Canada sustained a great injury from it without deriving any benefit in return. They not only gave that preference to England, but by it lost the important market of Germany which was likely to be of much more value in the future than it had been up to that time. Yet they were warned. I remember Sir Charles Tupper, over and over again, warning the Finance Minister that as sure as they forced that through the House, they would get into trouble with Germany over the favoured-nation clause. They answered that there was no fear, they knew too much about it, they had ways of doing these things that Sir Charles did not know. Sir Charles said: We have considered that carefully and made sufficient inquiry in the past to satisfy ourselves that there is a danger of complications arising from these foreign treaties. He said that if we could have them terminated in a friendly way we would have been glad to do so, but if the Canadian government first entered into negotiations that would afterwards compel the denouncing of these treaties then they would be denounced in an unfriendly way and the result would be that when Canada wished to resume negotiations the country whose treaty had been denounced would not be prepared to treat with us on reasonable terms. Sir Charles Tupper did everything he could to persuade them to abandon the suicidal course they were pursuing. The preference was forced through, and in less than nine months it was brought home to them in a way they could not ignore. And what were they obliged to do? They were compelled to ask England to help them out. England denounced the treaty and Germany has been a commercial enemy ever since. Any effort made since then to negotiate a treaty has been a signal failure. Why? Because they had offended Germany when they need not have done so, and Canada to-day would he in possession of all the advantages she ever enjoyed in regard to German trade. Then they made a blunder when they put a surtax on German goods. I do not think they then took the right way to commence negotiations in a proper and conciliatory way with Germany, but of course they were in trouble and were seeking to get out of it by whistling to keep their courage up, and they were very brave. In connection with this treaty, there seem to be two or three dangers ahead of us. One is that we may come in conflict with the Americans in the
change in their tariff under the Aldrich Bill. I agree with those who say that our first duty as a parliament in passing any law in this country, whether it be a tariff law or any other, is to have regard to the interests of Canada.
Let us act in the interests of Canada; let us act in the conciliatory spirit always, but let us not forget that it is the interest of our own countrv which should be our first concern. I remember very well that in 1887 when the Conservatives were in power the Liberals complained that we could not negotiate with our neighbours to the south because our tariff policy was irritating to them. To-day, however, these gentlemen on the government benches have changed their tune, and the Minister of Finance has told us that it was not the duty of Canada to wait and see what action the United States might take with reference to any question of Canadian policy. I agree with the Minister of Finance in that and I only mention the matter to show the inconsistency of his party. Now, it appears to me to be well worthy of our attention that there is a probability of our being able to negotiate with the mother country in the near future for inter-imperial preferential trade. The House of Lords will no doubt throw out the budget by a large majority so as to force the present government to appeal to the country, and I am very much mistaken if the people of England will not in the near future express their desire for a readjustment of the tariff so that the mother country may negotiate for inter-imperial preferential trade with her dominions beyond the seas. If we have a treaty of this kind on our hands we will be hampered and restricted in these negotiations, and therefore it is that I say there should be no hurry on our part in ratifying it. The more I study this treaty the more I am convinced that we will get no great advantage from it. In the past our cattle trade on the great.west-ern prairies was a thriving business, but, as has been recently reported by the veterinary inspector of the government the ranching business of the west has been declining for years, largely because of the difficulty in sending live cattle to the English market so far distant from the western prairies. The need of the hour is to establish abattoirs all over the west, so that we may export chilled meat to England, but neither the government nor the Minister of Agriculture has taken any action in that regard. Some years ago a commission was appointed to look into this question and an elaborate report was presented recommending that Canada should engage in this chilled meat trade, but the government naid no attention to the recommendation of that report. If bv any accident our live cattle were shut out of the American market, and out of the British market as well,

then no market would be left for us and the ranching trade would be ruined and those interested in it bankrupted. The home market of Canada is not able to absorb the products of both the eastern and western provinces and hon. gentlemen can easily see what a calamity it would be if we could not export our live cattle. If we had abattoirs; spread throughout the west and if we had steamship lines supplied with chilled meat chambers we might get some advantage from this French treaty, but until the government exert themselves to establish such'a trade in Canada little benefit will come to us from this treaty. It would seem to me that the benefit of the treaty is all on the side of France, and while we cannot but admire the French statesmen for making the best bargain they could for their country, we must regret that our own representatives did not look to the in-tefests of Canada in this bargain. I supported this treaty before, but in view of the changed conditions, if there is a vote called I shall now vote against it. I represent an agricultural constituency from which we ship a good many fat cattle and I thought that this treaty might be of some advantage ter us, tout now that there is no advantage given us in the export of cattle to the French market the treaty is of no benefit to us at all. Many of those interested in the cattle trade in rav constituency have pointed out this to me and have stated that the treatv had better never be signed. There is nothing now in this treaty to induce me to support it, and I sincerely believe that Canada would be better off without it.


Mr. A. HAGGART (Winnipeg).: I would not have sooken on this question were it not that the Board of Trade of Winnipeg have been giving it consideration, and it would seem that the opinion of that influential body of business men is that although we u%.nt our commercial relations extended in every legitimate direction yet there is a very grave question as to whether the beneficial results of this French treaty will be worth the effort and trouble bestowed on it. France is a country which grows practically all her own food stuffs and in that respect she is very unlike her neighbour Germany which is a large importer of just such natural products as we have to export. Germany has a population of 62,000,000; she imports about one billion dollars worth of food stuffs _ a year, and of that Canada supplies practically not one dollar's worth. Germany imports $56,000,000 worth of horses in a year and Canada does not send a horse. Germany imports $216,000,000 worth of grain in a year and Canada supplies the merest fraction of that. If then we cannot get back this trade without forfeiting our own national self-respect, there is an end of it. But the people are not Mr. SPROULE.
thinking . in that "direction; they are beginning to look in another direction. The city of Winnipeg has a fairly active Board of Trade. Many of the officers of that board are known personally to the members of this government. On the 28th of October last, at a meeting of that board, reported in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' of the 29th of October, I find that a resolution was moved by Mr. James H. Ashdown and seconded by Mr. F. W. Drewry, two of the most prominent members of that organization, and both engaged in trade in a very large way, as they have been for the last third of a century. Mr. Ashdown is a very strong supporter of this government, while Mr. Drewrv is a good consistent Conservative. The.report as given in the Winnipeg ' Free Press ' is in these words:
The matter of Canadian trade with Germany, both import and export, was discussed by the meeting, which unanimously adopted the. following resolution, moved by J. H. Ash-' down and F. W. Drewry.
Whereas, in consequence of the late tarifi legislation of the United States, there is a probability of increased restrictions being placed upon our trade with that country, and
Whereas, the increase in population, products and known resources of the Dominion of Canada is so large, and so rapidly increasing, that it is especially desirable that our trade relations should be extended as far as possible, and kept upon the most friendly basis, and
Whereas, the German government, forgetting our right to deal as we saw fit with our mother country, did impose an extra charge on goods from Canada, and as a consequence a surtax was placed on German goods entering this country, and it is advisable that the unfriendly relations brought about by these actions should cease;
Therefore, be it resolved, that this board would urge on the Dominion government the advisability of meeting in the most friendly spirit any advances made by the government of Germany looking toward again placing the trade relations of the two countries on a mutually satisfactory and friendly basis.
If the same efforts were expended in that direction, without any derogation to the honour or the self-respect of this country, I 'think the results would be much better than we are likely to obtain from the treaty which has been the subject of discussion in this House this afternoon.-


Mr. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac).: Mr. Speaker, in speaking of the ratification of the French treaty it is not my intention to make any extended remarks, as the ground has been pretty thoroughly covered already by men more competent to deal with the subject than I can pretend to be. But as I had not an opportunity of voting on this question when it came up two years ago, and as I represent a rural constituency, I think it only right that I should express my views on this occasion. 1 have listened with a great deal of interest

to the addresses which have been given on this subject by gentlemen on both sides of the House. I was very much imnressed the other day with some remarks about the necessity of Canada maintaining her dignity in her [DOT]international relations, and not submitting to anything of the nature of dictation from the United States or any other foreign country. With that sentiment I am entirely in accord. In regulating our trade relations with other nations we should be governed solely by business considerations in the interest of Canada. I was especially struck with a remark made by the hon. Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to the effect that we should maintain the dignity of Canada in such matters. But I could not help contrasting the present attitude of that hon. gentleman with his attitude previous to this government coming into power, when his motto was free trade as they have it in England *or unrestricted reciprocity, or anything or everything that would enable him to get into power, and he was ready to cast the dignity of Canada to the winds. I congratulate him on the different attitude he assumes to-day. Since he got a seat on the treasury benches, a change has cpie over the spirit of his dream, and he has been acquiring a little of that dignity as a Canadian that he should have had years ago. There is a phase of this trade question which lias not yet been touched upon, and to which I wish briefly to allude. Reference has been made by speakers on this side of the House to our trade with other countries. It is absolutely necessary that the people of Canada should look about for other markets for the products which this country is bound to produce in the years to come. But while we are seeking markets in France, Germany or any other country, to which I have no objection, I contend that we should consider the best market of all, that is, the home market; and in this respect I claim that the present administration has not shown either dignity or good sound common sense. Is it good sound common sense, for instance, for us to allow the Americans to bring their hay into Canada by paying a duty of $2 a ton, while they charge us $4 a ton on all the hay we send over there? Is it consistent with our dignity as a people that we should nermit American bacon to come into Canada to the extent of over 7,000,000 pounds at a duty of 2 cents per pound while they charge us a duty of 5 cents per pound on our bacon? Is it consistent with our position as a nation to permit them to export to this country potatoes, barley, oats, peas, beans, wheat and other products at less duty than they charge us on similar products? Is it good common sense for us to subsidize steamship lines which traverse the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and hunt up foreign markets while we allow American products to come in at an advantage although by their tariff they shut out our farm products? I protest against that jug handle policy. If the government would impose duties on American agricultural products equivalent to those imposed by the United States on our products, they would be doing more for the farmers of the Dominion than they could possibly do by five hundred French treaties.
Surprise has been expressed at the remarks made by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) with reference to our cattle going into France. I am sure there is not a member in this House who will not agree with me that, under the restrictions imposed by that treaty, not one head of Canadian cattle will ever enter the French market. Not one cattle dealer here would undertake to export cattle to France under the restrictions imposed by the French treaty. I am not surprised, however, at the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture because he has already stated in this House that the farmers of the Dominion are a slipshod set of people, that they are indifferent, that they lack industry and enterprise. That statement was made by him last session, as will be found on reference to page 2030 of the ' Hansard,' March 3 last.


Mr. MILLER.: Will the hon. gentleman read the words he says are in ' Hansard?'


John Wesley Edwards: Certainly, I am most happy to oblige my hon. friend. On the 3rd of March last in this House the hon. minister said, speaking of the farmers of Canada and of their failure to take advantage of the work of the Department of Agriculture :
If they would make use of one-tenth of it and carry one hundredth part of it into their every day operations, the result would amount to tens of millions of dollars more from agricultural produce than there is today.
Then he went on to say, and I presume this is what my hon. friend is so anxious to hear:
It is the farmers' slipshod methods in this country which is the limit of our agricultural [DOT] production.
I _ want to enter my emphatic protest against that statement. I protest against it as an insult to the farmer. I have given the reason why our farmers are not making greater progress. That is due to the fact that the duties we impose on American farm produce milita'tes against the farmers of our own country and in favour of the farmers of the United States. The hon, minister said further:
We are fortunate in Canada in having established a reputation in the world's market for a fine quality of agricultural products.

A very strange remark in view of the hon. minister's statement that our farmers are a slinshod sort of people.
And to-day the great market of Great Britain and Ireland is reaching out and demanding more of our finished agricultural products than we are sending to it, and the prices we get for those articles which we do send are such as to give the farmers of this country who raise the goods and export them splendid results, and the only pity is that the farmers are not doubling and quadrupling their exports every year. If they do not do it, it is not for lack of teaching or for lack of knowledge; it is for their lack of interest in their work, their lack of industry and largely, I- believe, for the lack of that labour which is necessary in the carrying on of our farming operations.
If that is not a straight accusation hurled by the Minister of Agriculture, the man who is specially supposed to have the interests of agriculture in this country at heart-if that is not a straight charge by him that the farmers of Canada are a slipshod, lazy set of people, I do not understand the English language.
. We have had a statement made here by my hon. friend from East Elgin (Mr. Marshall) as regards the effect that the carrying out of this treaty would have on the industry in which he is interested and which is one of the most important in this country. That industry benefits the farmers of this country, and I am prepared to accept the statement made by the hon. gentleman that it will be seriously damaged if this treaty is ratified.
Other statements have been made by other members. The hon. member for Lincoln and Niagara (Mr. Lancaster) has expressed the opinion that the treaty will injuriously affect the farmers in the Niagara district. The hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Campbell) has clearly pointed out that it vfrill have a bad effect on the cattle industry-of the west.
I am just going to make one statement further as to why I think this treaty should not be concluded at present. I am not going to say that we should not have a treaty with France. On the contrary I would hold up both hands for such a treaty as would increase the trade and prosperity of Canada. But the treaty now before us was brought up two years ago. Is it not true that the French Republic has taken ample time to consider how it affects their interests? No one will find fault with the French government for that. As business men they have given the matter very careful consideration. They have cut here and carved there and made the treaty to suit themselves, and in so doing they exercised their right as business men. But if they have taken ample time to consider the treaty from their standpoint, what harm will result from our taking a few months to consider it? There is undoubted-Mr. EDWARDS.
ly a spirit of unrest in England regarding tariff matters. I cannot predict what will take place there, but some change is likely in the course of the next few months, and I think it will be in our interest to wait a few months before ratifying this agreement. We ought to wait, because I believe that if we ratify the treaty now we shall pave the way for difficulties with regard to our trade with other countries which may result in very serious disadvantages to this country in time to come.


Mr. R. BICKERDIKE (Montreal, St. Lawrence).: As one of the farmers of this Dominion, I would like to say that I do not think we are going to suffer at all through our cattle trade not going to France. I am sure my hon. friend from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) will agree with me, because some of his own friends along with myself did try shipping cattle to France, and I only wish there had been * some law against it ten or twenty years ago, for if there had, we would be all richer men to-day. It is impossible to ship cattle to France with any advantage to the shippers. I was struck, however, with the very unpatriotic speech made by my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). It is quite unusual for him to be pandering to the United States as against the British empire. I could hardly believe my ears when I heard his utterances. Judging by his remarks, I can only come to the conclusion that he would prefer to have free trade with the United States rather than a preference for England. We certainly had one of the most unpatriotic speeches from that hon. gentleman that I have ever heard of anywhere, except some utterances at Lachine, in the riding of Jacques Cartier, a few nights ago.
With regard to the shipping of dressed meat our friend complains that there are no abattoirs. I can tell the hon. gentleman -and I am sure the hon. member from Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart) will back me up -that one of the best abattoirs in America is established in the city of Winnipeg and is under the management of good friends of his, Messrs. Gordon, Ironside & Fares. But the shipping of dressed beef from this country to Europe will not be a success owing to the climatic conditions and the short season.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How comes it, then, that this trade has been made a great success in shipping from Chicago practically along the same lines of communication?


Robert Bickerdike: 1 mink my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) knows as well as I do about the cattle trade of this country-


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. member answer my question?


Robert Bickerdike: I was going to. The reason is that their climate is so different from ours. They can ship cattle all the year round and you cannot do that from Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Why?


Robert Bickerdike: Because of climatic conditions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the cattle were killed and the dressed meat shipped in cold storage, could not that be done?


Robert Bickerdike: Certainly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is what I am advocating.


Robert Bickerdike: But we have tried it for years and the hon. member knows that it has never been a success.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Because we never had suitable cold storage.


Robert Bickerdike: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would like to ask the hon. member, if we cannot ship cattle to France, why was France so anxious to prevent it under this treaty? Was not she trying to protect herself?


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: I have listened with a great deal of attention to the discussion on the ratification of this treaty, and I think all who have listened to it will agree that the discussion has been exhaustive and very moderate and reasonable in tone. It seems to me that commercial arrangements of this kind need to be carefully examined. There is always something to be said pro and con. And I do not think that any one can complain of what has been said in this discussion. I do not wish to speak at length. I supported the treaty as it came before us originally, and voted for it-differing from my right hon. friend the prime minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who, when we endeavoured to establish trade relations with France, marshalled all his forces against the treaty of 1893 and voted and spoke against it. What is the change we have to ratify to-day? It relates to cattle. I take the . statement of my hon. friend from St. Law-ernce, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike)-who, it seems to me, has not said all with regard to myself that he would liked to have said-I take his statement as that of a man of large experience in this particular line of trade. He said we could never do any cattle trade with France, and I cordially agree with him. In fact, it seemed to me, when this treaty first came before us, that its importance was very much exaggerated. It is, I am sure, a treaty of small importance, viewed in itself, and outside of all surrounding circumstances. It will not give us .any great advantage, nor do I think it will give any great advantage to France. I do not believe it will interfere with the vine growers or wine makers of this country to any appreciable degree; and, with regard to the manufacturers in certain lines where we can give some advantage to France, as perfumes, scented soap, &c., I do not think the competition of France will have anv lasting effect upon our industries. It is & harmless treaty, and it has been unduly magnified. When the treaty first came before us I had the misfortune to be misunderstood by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Field-nig). I was not opposed to the negotiation or to the agreement founded on those negotiations; but I wanted, in the interest of all, to reduce the treaty to its real value, to what it really was. Because what had been done in France was grossly exaggerated with a view to deceiving the people as to the effect. At that time, I mentioned the gorgeously expensive reception of welcome which was tendered to our Lord High Admiral-I mean the Minister of' Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur). The whole of our fleet, such as it was then, was marshalled out to go down the river and meet my hon. friend (Mr. Brodeur)-for I must say that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding), who had, I believe, a clearer notion of what had been done, abstained from taking part in that deceptive demonstration. Well, they went down. All our boats were out; there were refreshments galore, and fireworks and a great display. I turned out with the others to see the fireworks, and I have always questioned since who paid for that large display. Not the French government, not any individual or body that I know of. I assume that the expenditure, which was very considerable and quite unjustifiable, had been paid by the country. And for what reason? The alleged reason was that this was a great boon obtained by our plenipotentiaries for the agricultural classes; and further that we had affirmed before

the whole world that Canada alone, with no intervention, with no assistance, for the first time since its discovery had negotiated its own treaty. That demonstration was organized by my hon. friend the Solicitor General (Mr. Bureau) for purposes of his own, and I believe that nobody was more surprised than the admiral himself when he became the recipient of all this upon his arrival in the St. Lawrence river. I endeavoured to reduce the thing to its true expression; there was no boon whatever for the agricultural classes; there was nothing in it-cannot be any thing in any treaty that we conclude with France. France is an immensely wealthy country, and agriculturally is the greatest country in the world. It requires no food products from other countries. France exports its agricultural products to England, to Italy, to Germany. It always has a superfluity of grain, it has wheat in abundance. I was surprised to hear this morning that we had sent some wheat to France.


An hon. MEMBER.: Seed wheat.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Probably, because France exports wheat and always has, and it is the policy of France to keep immense stores of wheat in the country. Therefore, anybody who knew anything about France was surprised to hear the affirmation repeatedly made in the papeT under the direction of my right hon. friend, that this treaty was going to make all the agriculturists of Canada rich. Particularly it was stated in ' Le Canada,' my right hon. friend's personal organ in Montreal, that in future we were going to export all our fat cattle to France and feed the French, they were going to eat nothing else but Canadian cattle. Then suddenly this difficulty arose in France, and the last hope that we might do something in the way of fat cattle had to be * abandoned when the French public became alarmed and said they did not want to have our fat cattle there, and that item was struck out. The Minister of Finance has stated that the difficulty which occurred in France was in reference to fat-cattle. He may be right, I do not think that is the whole story of the difficulty, as I understand it. What they discovered in the French Senate, when they discussed this treaty, W'as that we had handed them a gold brick when we offered them advantages which were not conceded to other countries, because they found out that not only Switzerland but twenty other countries had the same advantages. This led to further negotiations-that is what I understand- and finally we gave up the hope of exporting fat cattle, because it was discovered that we wanted to hand them a gold brick, and the fat cattle clause was struck out.
I say again that there is nothing of a serious character in this treaty. My hon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: friend from Quebec County (Mr. Turcotte) gave up the agricultural boon that was to come to our province. I understood him to admit that from an agricultural standpoint there was nothing in this treaty that ever could be of advantage to Canada. He fell back on the advantages we might have in getting hooks from France. Certainly if this treaty was to open to us the admirable literature of France, I would hail it with great satisfaction. But as a matter of fact, it only comes to this, that those who wish for French books, which are very expensive, may have to pay some ten cents less for them. Although that is an advantage, I do not think it can seriously affect our trade in French books. If I thought the treaty w'ould have that effect, that alone should commend it to us. We must not forget that the effect of these negotiations is to bring us into closer relations with France, which I consider, is a very great advantage. It will enable us to have here that in which the French excel, namely, the production of articles de luxe, of artistic industrialism, if I may use that expression, which cannot but be of great advantage to us, and which we cannot get from any other country. .From the artistic point of view I think it is an advantage. Otherwise it seems to me, viewing the treaty in itself, it is of such a harmless character that we might accept it without much demur.
Very different, I must confess, would be the prospect of a treaty with Germany. There is no doubt in my mind that we can do a very large trade with Germany, for the very reasons that we cannot do that trade with France. Germany is a much poorer country, and has a much larger population. Agriculturally it is very poor, and it is certain that we would do an immense business with Germany if the unfortunate conditions existing at present could be eliminated. But with respect to France those very circumstances reversed become difficulties and objections, and I think that anybody who looks carefully at this treaty will see that there is not much element of harm in the treaty itself. I do not think we will do much trade_ with France in . the way of agricultural implements. We may possibly do_ something in lumber and wood, but that is very doubtful. In the first place, France herself is abundantly supplied with wood, because it has an excellent forestry system, far superior to our own, and one which must ensure that rich country being well supplied with wood perpetually. She imports wood and lumber from the Black Sea, from Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Russia, and it is very improbable that we can compete with those countries in respect of wood. The only trade which I think we may ultimately develop with France is in

pulp; such a trade would be advantageous to ourselves if it'could be developed. They use a great deal of pulp in France. It must be prepared in a special manner, and if we prepared pulp as they use it, we would possiblv develop a trade with France in that article. It has been well said in regard to all treaties that very often they do not produce the effect they are expected to produce, while on the other hand they sometimes develop unforeseen and unexpected sources of interchange of products.
Now, Sir, I have heard it said several times this afternoon that sentiment has nothing to do with arrangements of this kind with other countries. I do not agree with that. I think sentiment has very much to do with commercial treaties, always has had, and I think properly so. We have not concluded a treaty, but we have established a tariff specially favourable to Great Britain, giving her a special favour, for which we receive nothing in return. It is a matter of sentiment. For my own part, I thought at the time, and have always expressed the view, that we were going very far. The results have ' demonstrated that those who raised that obiection were right. Among the consequences has been the fact that our woollen industries have suffered immensely. In one or two instances our agricultural interests have been greatly affected in consequence. Take the pickle industry, because that touches the city of Montreal; the pickle industry, which was assuming very large proportions in Montreal, has been completely killed bv the preferential tariff, and the agricultural population of my county and of the neighbouring counties has suffered extremely in consequence. The Ozon Manufactory, which cost the late Mr. Carsley over $250,000, and the adjoining factory of great importance which manufactured boxes exclusively for the pickle industry, have both ceased to operate, and that particular industry which benefited manufacturers and agriculturalists has been ruined, at any rate in my part of the country. So this preferential tariff is a matter of sentiment, there is no doubt about that. The Minister of Finance says that we introduced this preferential tariff in order to favour the mother country. My hon. friend is mistaken. The Minister of Finance, when introducing it, stated in answer to a question from this side of the House, that this preferential tariff was open to the whole world. We all remember, I remember, although it is very long ago, our minister at that time, Sir Louis Davies, pretending that the variest tyro in legal matters, the first year law student, knew perfectly well that it could not affect in any way our relations with Germany or Belgium. The result showed that these gentlemen were absolutely mistaken and the treaties had to be denounced. In this particular case, viewing the treaty in itself, as I and many others outside of this House do as very unimportant in its results, ' there is the question of sentiment to be considered. France, one of the most powerful nations in Europe, after being separated from England for centuries by continuous strife has been brought by the stress of political events in Europe very close to England. They are allies, and in the conflict which must take place some day, they will be side by side. What has followed? The interchange of the most agreeable relations between the two countries, boards of trade from France visiting England and being received sumptuously, the aldermen of London visiting the French capital and there being received in the same manner. The relations are most agreeable and with respect to ourselves, if my view of the treaty is the correct one, and it involves no serious consequences, I think it would be a regrettable circumstance, from a sentimental point of view, to se_e us at this moment retroceding from the treaty because the element of fatted cattle has been removed from it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It interests a large section of our population, who, from a sentimental standpoint, look with very natural favour on the renewal of our relations with that ancient country from which many of them sprang. An endeavour made in that connection to renew relations, if not absolutely detrimental to us cannot but be conducive to the very best results in every way. I think that is a consideration that might very properly have some weight with this parliament and this country in accepting the treaty in which, as I said before, I do not for my part see any very great possible injury to this country.
I said that the treaty in itself seemed to me to be unimportant. We cannot, as long as France remains a protectionist country and we a protectionist country situated as we are now, develop any very great commercial relations with that country. I do not believe that is possible. Allusion has been made here to the possibility of this treaty creating complications for ourselves in reference to our relation to other countries, and I must say for my own part that the Minister of Finance has seemed to me to be strangely lacking in not placing earlier before the House all the information possible concerning the different countries with which, as a consequence of this treaty, we place on the same favourable terms of commercial relationship. We have no information at all in respect to that and in respect also to the effect of the treaty in regard to our relations with the United States. It seems to me that we were en-

titled to fuller information upon that point.
I asked the Minister of Finance very innocently the other day if he had taken the trouble to inquire as to the effects of this treaty in regard to our relations with the United States. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that he had not and would not. That seems to me to he a very faulty disposition on the part of the one who is engineering this treaty through the House, and I think it was a proper question to ask. Although I have been severely criticised outside the House for having asked that question, I say it was a pertinent question and one from which it could not be concluded that I was anxious to make our own dealings subservient to the dictates of any other country, and I maintain that position. The responsibility for this treaty rests with this government. Scanty or not as has been the information given us on that point, the responsibility under the circumstances of this treaty Tests with this government and they cannot escape it, if evil consequences ensue on points on which we have been deprived of necessary information, easily obtainable.
I am led-to state that it seems to me we ought to negotiate treaties with all countries that have any need for our products and with which we can deal advantageously. We have immense natural resources, there are markets in which we could advantageously dispose of these resources and these negotiations which we conduct for the purpose of business and the development of the vast possibilities of our trade are useful to us. The discussion of this treaty in the French -chamber has made known this country to better advantage in France than all the money we have spent on useless immigration agents in that country. I desire to point out to this House that under the present system these commercial negotiations are extremely difficult, and that it is time for us to think of so adjusting or amending our procedure in that regard as to make these negotiations less complicated. At present, if we see prospects of trade with a country we have to present our representations to the chief imperial officer, to the Governor General of this country. He in turn forwards those representations to the colonial office in London, which turns them over to the foreign secretary, who afterwards communicates with the foreign secretary of the country with which we desire to negotiate. That foreign secretary turns over our representations to the Minister of Commerce of that country and any answer that we receive must come back through the same circuitous channel. That is an extremely disadvantageous way in modern times for us to negotiate our treaties and it is a great surprise to me that my right hon. friend who has attended the imperial conferences * Mr. MONK.	.
in London has not seen fit to bring this great disadvantage to the knowledge of the imperial conferences in order that some serious effort might be made to render more easy negotiations which, subjected to that particular procedure, become almost impossible and fruitless. We should also think seriously of removing another great disability which is found in the favoured nations treaties which are in considerable number and interfere with the extension in a profitable sense of our commercial relations. That -can be done without any undue friction. We must get rid of those treaties if we are to extend our commerce throughout the world as we are justified in thinking we can do.
With regard to the German treaty, I was surprised to hear the Minister of Finance say that every possible effort had been made to prevent in the first place and then to remedy the state of affairs that exists at the present time. I remember asking the right hon. gentleman myself if at the time of the negotiation of the Anglo-Belgian and Anglo-German treaties this government had done anything for the purpose of intervening in the negotiations which led up to the conclusion of the new treaties. My recollection is that the Minister of Finance stated that nothing had been done, and in that the government were greatly in fault. A new treaty was being negotiated and we should have been notified to take part in the negotiations, or, if we were not notified, the duty of the government at that moment was to intervene and endeavour to secure the protection of our interests in the proper manner at the proper time. But, my hon. friend told me that nothing had been -done then. If any correspondence has taken place it should be laid on the table of the House. The Minister of Finance stated afterwards that every possible endeavour had since been made to remedy that state of affairs, and I understood him to say that he had negotiated with the German consul here and that representations had been made, and we should have that correspondence.


William Stevens Fielding: That has been in possession of the House for years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It -cannot have been before the House for years because these are events of recent date. I would be very glad to know if there is -correspondence between the imperial authorities and this government at the time of the renewal of the German treaty, and if there is has it been laid on the table of the House. There is none. There were no representations made and it is in consequence of the awkward manner in which the Canadian government acted at that time that our commercial relations with Germany were broken off just in the same way as this government, blind-
NOVFMTiFT? ?tn lQflQ
ly, concluded a treaty with Japan which obliged us, despite three warnings from the imperial government, to go on our knees to Japan a short time afterwards and ask them for favours which they conceded in a lofty letter in which they reserved their right at any time they deemed it necessary to insist on the full execution of the treaty.


Wilfrid Laurier: I would not have taken part in this debate were it not for the character which my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) endeavoured to give to this treaty. In his opening remarks he paid some attention to me and he stated that I had spoken and voted against the treaty of 1893. That is a statement which I could dispute but I will pass it with the observation that if I spoke and voted against the treaty of 1893 I had the merit, which after all is not a very high one, of consistency. I remember very well that on the treaty, not of 1893, but of 1907, my hon. friend spoke one way and voted the other way, and I will be very much surprised if, although he spoke against this treaty tonight, he will not end by voting in favour of it. The hon. gentleman tries to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds, but that is his own business and the business of the electors of Jacques Cartier. The important statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Monk) was that this is a mere childish treaty, that there is no necessity for it at all, that it is of no consequence to Canada whatever, and he gives as his reason that France is such a rich country that she does not need to import agricultural products. The hon. gentleman told us that France produces enough wheat, butter, cheese and other such commodities to render her independent of importations from other nations. Is the hon. gentleman serious in that statement? Why, he has not even read the blue-book which has been put. in his hands and which gives the statistics upon which this treaty was negotiated. If he looks at his blue-book he will find that France imported in the year mentioned here, wheat to the value of 186,666,000 francs, or more than $27,000,000. And yet, the hon. gentleman says that France does not need to import one single bushel of wheat. Lfet me tell the hon. gentleman, further, that France imported flour to the value of 5,887,000 francs. But that is not all. If the hon. gentleman looks at this blue-book he will find that France imported oats to the value of 50,000,000 francs, barley to the value of 26,000.000 francs, maize to the value of 51,000,000 francs and other grains to the value of 25,000,000 francs. Still more, France imported horses to the value of 11,000,000 francs and eggs to the value of 36,000,000 francs. Now, it is true that France is an exporter of cheese, but France only exports certain qualities
and in one year she imported 48,000,000 francs worth of cheese. These are the real facts and not the fancies which my hon. friend has given to the House. These are the facts which induced us to negotiate a treaty and to try to obtain some advantage in the French market for the products of Canada. Then, the hon. gentleman told us that France would not take our lumber because she has large forests of her own and a most admirable system of forest preservation. That is true, and in the preservation of her forests France is teaching us a lesson which I hope we shall soon learn. But though France takes good care of her forests and has large timber areas, France is a large importer of wood. If my hon. friend looks at the statistics in this blue-book he will find that France has imported:
Woods, common:
Logs, round, not squared with or without the bark, of any length and of a circumference at the thickest end of not more than 60 centimeters, 3,218,225 francs.
Wood, sawn or squared, 80 millimeters in thickness and above 10, 156,375 francs.
Wood, squared or sawn, less than 80 millimeters and exceeding 35 millimeters in thickness, 59,447,765 francs.
Wood, sawn 35 millimeters in thickness or less, 46,502,530 francs.
Stave wood, 26,461,770 francs.
In all, France imported about 200,000,000 francs worth of wood and yet the hon. gentleman says that the market of France is of no advantage to us.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say that France did not import wood; I said that she imported wood from the Black Sea, from Russia and other countries, but I said that I did not think we could send her any.


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, if France imports wood from the Black sea there is no reason why France cannot import wood from Canada, and if we have an advantage in the markets of France then I think the French people will buy their wood from Canada rather than from the Black sea. It is because France now imports her timber from the Black sea that, having the benefit of the minimum tariff, we will send her wood from Canada. Then, my hon. friend stated that he had no confidence that in agricultural implements we could make any impression on the French market or that we would have any advantage a| all from this treaty. That is not the opinion of the manufacturers of agricultural implements. On the contrary they have been pressing for the ratification of this treaty, and my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture did not exaggerate this afternoon when he said that we had a good hope of capturing that market. Sir, this is a most important treaty. My hon. friend is convinced of it,, so much so that-

I am pretty sure that I shall not be a false prophet when I say that although he has damned it with faint praise, he will end by supporting it with his vote. I have but one word to say to my hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong). He appeals for improved trade relations with Germany. I have no hesitation in saying to my hon. friend that for my part I am not satisfied with our relations with Germany; they are not natural or what they ought to be. But the fault is not ours. We have been compelled by the action of Germany to defend our own position, and we have succeeded. My hon. friend has told us that German agents are very anxious to open negotiations with us. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has stated that as soon as we have disposed of the present treaty we shall be prepared to consider the other treaties. But let me warn my hon. friend that if we make a treaty with Germany, he will have difficulty, not with this side of the House, but with the other side. His own leader has told us that he has agreed to the ratification of this treaty simply because there is a provision in it that it can be terminated at any time on twelve months notice. If it were made for ten years, he would not vote for it, because later on it might complicate our relations with Great Britain. Therefore if the hon. leader of the opposition and those who support him vote for the ratification of this treaty because it can be terminated at any time, my hon. friend from East Lambton will have some difficulty in persuading his own friends to support a treaty with Germany. * In my opinion, we should endeavour to push our commercial relations in every part of the world. We have opened our doors as widely as possible to British trade in the hope that at some time or other we shall have preferential treatment in the British market. But, Sir, I shall not complicate this matter. It is possible to have preferential arrangements with Great Britain without injuring our relations with other countries.


Mr. M. S. SCHELL (South Oxford).: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to speak on this question, but I wish to utter my protest against some reflections which have been made on the opposition side of the House in regard to the agricultural interests of this country. Some hon. gentlemen have sought to convey the idea that the farmers of this country are not in a prosperous condition, and that this government has not been doing what is in their interest. I wish to dissent from that. We know that the cattle industry of this country has developed at a marvellous rate in the last few years, owing largely to the way in which this government has fostered the English market, and we know that to-day . cattle are bringing a better price than they Sir WILFRID LAUR.IER.
ever did before in the history of western Canada. Indeed, never in the history of Canada have the farmers obtained such high prices as they are getting at the present time for all their products, whether beef, pork, butter, cheese, eggs or any other pfoduct. A few years ago, when this government entered into a preferential trade arrangement with England, the opposition criticised them on the ground that they were not getting any preference from Great Britain in return. But what did we find? Immediately after that preference went into operation, the British people bought very, largely of our agricultural products and paid for them a higher price, and they found that our goods were worthy of a better position on their market than they had hitherto obtained. The more they bought, the better they appreciated what we sent to them, so that our exports to England doubled in value in a few years after 1897, when the preferential arrangement with Great Britain was entered into.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: To what other country can we send our agricultural products at the present time?


Malcolm Smith Schell: We send some to the United States; but so long as we have captured the British market, which is the best market in the world, and are maintaining a position of supremacy there against all competitors with the exception perhaps of Denmark in one or two particulars, we need not worry about our trade with other countries.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Can the hon. gentleman tell us whether we are getting in the British market any better terms than any other country in the world? Are we not all on the same footing?


Malcolm Smith Schell: That is quite true. We have no tariff arrangements in our favour, but we have the sentimental benefit upon which considerable stress was laid by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) a few moments ago in regard to the French treaty. There is in our favour the power of English sentiment and the appreciation of a people who are willing to trade. And that brings out another thought in connection with this treaty with France. It opens up a larger field and a wider opportunity for the Dominion of Canada in the matter of making treaties with other countries. There is something even broader and more important than the effect of this treaty on our trade with France. I believe that it will make Germany desirous of negotiating with Canada a treaty by which our trade relations may be improved, and I want, not merely as a representative of an agricultural constituency, although representing as rich an agricultural county as there is in the Dominion of Canada, but as

a Canadian, speaking from a broader standpoint, to express my appreciation of the treaty that has been negotiated with France. I speak as a representative of manufacturing industries, of which we have a considerable number in the county of Oxford. I know that there is a large industry in Ingersoll that is very anxious to have this treaty ratified in order that it may obtain the advantages that will come to it as a manufacturer of agricultural implements. This will give that industry the advantage of some $6 or $7 per machine exported to France as compared with the American manufacturers. And we know that the trade in agricultural implements now amounts to $800,000 practically per year in round figures. Under this treaty there is reasonable prospect of that trade being more than doubled in the very near future unless possibly arrangements be made by which the United States may obtain entrance into that market on a somewhat similar basis.
I am surprised at the attempts which have been made to belittle our preferential trade with Great Britain and at the efforts of several speakers opposite to show that we should cultivate the United States market instead of the British and other foreign markets. Why, the English market is certainly the best in the world, and we obtain the benefit of it as already intimated. And in connection with the French treaty. I believe that we shall also obtain from it a benefit even greater than appears on the surface in the matter of concessions to us on the exports we may send to that country, besides the better feeling which will prevail and the advantages given to us of buying cheaper the French goods which we require., If there is something we want to buy and we can buy it more cheaply, that is quite as much advantage to us as getting better prices for the goods we sell. Several hon. gentlemen opposite have spoken of the danger of our getting French goods into the country. Sir,
I consider it an advantage to buy cheaply something I want, and I look upon that treaty as advantageous which will enable us to buy cheaper the goods we require and give us better prices for the goods we sell. The government are to be congratu- I lated on this arrangement and the people of this Dominion will appreciate, and appreciate thoroughly, this treaty which has been negotiated with France and which I believe will be ratified by this parliament.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Did I understand the hon. gentleman correctly to say that there never was a time in the history of Canada when the cattle trade was growing so much as of late years and the farmers getting such good returns?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I said that the prices of western cattle were never better than today.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How then does the hon. gentleman account for this fact that whereas in 1896 we shipped out to England and all foreign countries 211,000 head, in 1908 _we only shipped 150,000; and that whereas in 1901 we got $1,500,000 for what we shipped out, last year we only got $1,300,000?


Malcolm Smith Schell: I would say that the mortality which took place among cattle in the western states three years ago, owing to the very severe winter, materially reduced their shipments.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: These were not shipped from the western states but from Canada.


David Henderson: Possibly I would not have arisen to say anything had it not been for the somewhat extraordinary statement made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat. I was surprised to hear repeated, perhaps for the hundredth time, that worn out argument that we got a preference from Great Britain for the preference we gave, and the statement in support of that argument that we were shipping a larger amount of produce than ever before to Great Britain. Why, we produce more. Look at our great Northwest with its many million bushels of wheat going out and increasing year by year, how would it be possible that our exports to Great Britain should not increase? We are producing more cheese and more pork, how then would it be possible that our exports would not increase. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about sentiment. Did you ever see an Englishman who would give you more money for an article or buy it simply out of pure love. I take an Englishman to be a man of business. They do not do business over there for the fun of it, but on business principles and I admire them for that. An Englishman gets all he can out of the preferential tariff. He knows that we cannot buy a yard of linen in this country outside of Great Britain unless we pay a duty of thirty per cent, or five per cent higher than it was before the preferential tariff was introduced. Do you mean to tell me that the Englishman would not increase his price by about four per cent or five per cent to the Canadian purchaser? Where is the sentiment? All on the side of the Englishman. Well, the sentiment he has is for his own pocket.


An hon. MEMBER.: Or the Scotchman.


David Henderson: Yes, just the same as the Englishman. Instead of saying the Englishman, I should have said the people of Great Britain. Do you mean to say that



under the preferential tariff, the manufacturer of Great Britain or the exporter does not charge the people of this country more for the goods we buy than he did before. I have before me a document which to my mind proves the whole question. We have heard a great deal about the increase in the cost of living in this country. What was it brought about that increase? Why' we had to come to the rescue last year of our civil servants and grant them increased salaries because of the enormous increase in the cost of living. I was not surprised at these men asking for an increase of salary. The policy of this country has compelled them to pay more for what they require. Here is a table prepared by the officers of this government. There can be no disputing it. At any rate I am not going to dispute it. Let me give a few examples from that table to show the actual increase in the cost of living. And where does that increase come from, if not from this double tariff which we have? I know I shall be charged with disloyalty if I say one word against the British preference, and consequently I am not going to speak along that line, but I do say that I am not one of those who approve of a double tariff. I do not approve of a douDle French tariff or a double tariff with Switzerland or Japan or any other country. I do not approve of one tariff to fix the amount of money that shall go into the treasury and another to fix the price of the goods which the purchaser shall pay. That is what we have under the British preference. The minimum or preferential tariff simply declares how much should go into the treasury of this country on goods imported into Canada. But the general tariff fixes the prices of those goods to the consumer; no doubt about that. The British manufacturer knows how much to charge for his linen goods, for instance, for he knows we cannot buy from the United States or any other country except Britain unless we pay the highest tariff. The same applies to cotton and any other classes of goods. And we have the evidence of this in the statement. I would not like to detain the House at this time by reading a very large number of items, but I will give hon. members some illustration of how the cost of living in this country is increased and how this increase has been brought about under the double tariff which has existed for some twelve years:
Article.	Increase.
Shirtings	
27	per cent.Sheetings	
45	"Factory cotton	
60	"Prints (crums)	
25	"Muslins	
25	"Denims	,.25	"Ticking	
36	"Cashmeres	
20	"Linen (brown holland).. 20	"Table linens	
33J	"Towellings	25	"


David Henderson: 
William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend is becoming a free trader, he has been complaining to-night of the duties.


David Henderson: Well, I do not think the Finance Minister should blame me very much if I did turn a little along the

line of free trade. I do not think that I am advocating a free trade policy when I say that if you reduce the duty on a manufactured article you ought to reduce the duty on the raw material of which that article is made. That is not free trade, that is fair trade, but it does not seem to be part of the policy of this government. Fair trade i& what the people of .this country want. I will undertake to say that the glove manufacturer to whom I referred wouM not so seriously complain of the reduction in duty, of the advantage given to the French glove makers in the markets of this country, if he got a similar advantage in his raw material; the one would balance the other. But when you make it harder for the man in this country to carry on his trade, I think you ought at the same time to do something to help him carry on that trade.


William Stevens Fielding: We don't need a treaty to do that, the man can do it of his own motion.


David Henderson: What is the use of this French treaty if you can do it of your own motion? I will tell you how the hon. gentleman tried to do it last time the tariff was revised, he actually tried to put through this House a change in the tariff raising the duty on this raw material, this kid leather, from ten per cent to thirteen per cent. That is the way he would do it by Act of parliament. I remember well appealing to my hon. friend the Minister of [DOT]Customs, whom I always found fair; when I showed him the various samples of glove leathers and made my appeal to him, he saw the point, and came down, and said: Well, put it at ten per cent; and it is at ten per cent still, although in the first issue of the tariff of 1907 it was put at thirteen per cent.


William Stevens Fielding: That only proves how fair we are.


David Henderson: Fair when you couldn't help it, fair when you were found out. The hon. gentleman became fair when he 'saw there was no justice in what he was doing. He was found out. Had he not been found out and exposed, I have no doubt it would have been thirteen instead of ten per cent. Sometimes I am accused of being a high tariff man. I advocated a low tariff in that case and I felt justified in doing it. I believe in a low tariff when a low tariff is the best for this country, and when a high tariff is justified and in the best interests of the country I am prepared to support it. Reference has been made to the question of wines. I have the honour of representing a county that grows a very considerable quantity of grapes from which a very good quality of wine can be made. I feel that I would only be voting in the interests of my constituents by declaring Mr. HENDERSON.
that 1 do not want these French wines to come in at such a largely reduced rate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the interests of temperance as well.


David Henderson: The question of temperance I need not put before the Minister of Finance, because he understands that thoroughly. I do not think it will make much difference as far as temperance is concerned, whether the wine pays 25 cents or 15 cents a gallon. I am not opposing it on that ground, but on the ground of fair trade, fair play. The people of those counties in the Niagara district and along the north shore of Lake Ontario have invested very largely in expensive lands. They have planted these small high-priced farms out with grapes and are producing an excellent quality of grape. These grapes are being manufactured into wine and I say it would be unfair to these people now, after they have made their investment, to bring about such an enormous reduction in the rate of duty on wines, so that this country would be invaded by the products of France while our farmers are getting nothing in return to compensate them.


Hon. WM. PATERSON (Minister of Customs).: Mr. Speaker, hon. gentlemen opposite representing largely agricultural constituencies have said that they are bound to look at this question in a measure from the agriculturists' standpoint, and so, representing that very important class in the community, I have come to the conclusion that I should support .this treaty in their interests. The Prime Minister has pointed out that many million dollars' worth of farm products are imported into_ France with which country we are making this treaty. The last speaker (Mr. Henderson) thought there was no force in that argument because he said we were not sending any in there.


David Henderson: I did not say that. Mr. PATERSON, -and because of the duty.


David Henderson: Yes, that part of it.


Mr PATERSON.: And- because the duty was the same, there being no difference between the maximum and the minimum tariffs, therefore, to secure that for the farmers was of no value to him. Be tor-gets this point, that that is a market into which the products of the farms of other countries find their way to the extent of millions of dollars, and the government in negotiating this treaty want to secure for the farmers of this country that they shall have access on the very best terms that that country gives to any other country for these millions of dollars worth of produce, that is to place them on a fair basis of competition.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: They had that before.


William Paterson: But they may change that at any minute, and on these millions of dollars' worth of farm products they may reduce their minimum tariff by treaty to another country which produces these farm products in competition with ours. What position would we be in then with this treaty in force? One of supreme ease because for every cent they take off the duty to any other country they have to take off a cent to our farmers. . Is that nothing? That is where we are, that is the position we are in, and in the interests of our farmers, I think I would assume a great responsibility if I should lift my voice or give my vote against a treaty which secures to them that advantage. It is admitted that some of the manufacturers will derive very great material benefits. Have hon. gentlemen opposite discarded all their notions of a lifetime that I have heard advanced in this House, that if you can enlarge your manufacturing' industries in this country you therefore enlarge the market for the farmers' products? Under a treaty that will give from $6 to $8 advantage to our agricultural manufacturers on a binder giving them the market of France, as against their American competitors, thus doubling the produce of our factories, according to the arguments I have heard advanced by the hon. gentlemen opposite time after time, the farmer is benefited as it enlarges his home market. What he wants is men to work in the factories, to be consumers of his products. What do hon. gentlemen, speaking in the interests of farmers, propose when they suggest voting against this treaty? What does the member for Prontenac (Mr. Edwards) say? He says:	Do not legislate in that way, what
does that amount to? What you want to do is, when the American charges you six cents on your butter, to raise your duty on butter from four cents to six cents and when he charges six cents on your cheese to raise your duty of three cents to six cents. That is the way he wants to benefit the farmer? What will that amount do? The American sends into Canada 473,805 pounds of butter in the course of the year, and this he says is ruining our farmers. What does it amount to? Multiply those pounds by 16, turn it into ounces and divide by seven millions, the number of people in Canada and it will be seen that the butter coming into Canada is one ounce for every man and woman and child in the country, enough to spread one slice of bread a year. That is the theory that we have set up against our policy of securing for the farmers of Canada the certainty that France, which imports millions of dollars worth of farm products, never can admit the products of any other country at
a lower rate than ours. But then there is cheese. We import from the United States 231.811 pounds of cheese and we are going to save the farmer by raising the duty from 3 to 6 cents on cheese. Calculating as we did in the case of butter you will find that the Americans send into Canada about half an ounce of cheese for every man, woman and child a year. That is the Conservative way of benefiting the farmer. The member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) can go to' his constituents and say: I voted down the French treaty. If they sav to him: Are there not some good points about it, he will say: Well I do not know, we did not get any advantage. They may say: Were we not getting an advantage by securing the mimimum rate of duty allowed to any other nation? He will answer:	Oh, but I think that the plan I
have advocated is better, to have a higher duty to shut out the Yankee butter that comes into this country. How much comes in? There is an ounce in the year for every man. woman and child. But they say to him: We are in the county of Frontenac and you are representing us and there are hundreds of thousands of farmers in the other constituencies throughout the Dominion as well as in this, and we will be all scrambling to get a share of that ounce of butter. Just fancy the idea of talking to the farmers that wav and voting down a treaty that secures for them entrance to a market that takes millions of dollars' worth of their products.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the hon. gentleman advocate it on bacon and other things?


William Paterson: Yes, I will take the whole list, but I did not want to make my remarks too long. Our farmers after producing every pound of cheese that is used by our own people -have over 160,000,000 pounds to export to other countries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: How much of that do they send to France?


William Paterson: They want to send *some of it to France and that is why we are negotiating this treaty.


John Wesley Edwards: The hon. gentleman misunderstood me. I asked him if he made the same remarks with regard to bacon and I asked him that because his argument was so oily.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman spoke of cheese and butter.


John Wesley Edwards: And also bacon.


William Paterson: He will find that we produce as much bacon as we required in this country and that we exported some too.


John Wesley Edwards: We import over 7,000,-**000 pounds from the United States,


William Paterson: Oh, I know all about the imports and exports; it is my business to look after them all the time. The way to benefit the farmer is not the way the hon. gentleman recommended, but it is to ratify this treaty and get the best terms you possibly can in the export market for that which we produce a surplus of, and I think we produce a surplus of almost every agricultural product. And now, as to subsidizing the steamship line, I am not a prophet, but I do know as a business man that when you make transportation more certain, cheaper, and more frequent, you will extend your market as you" could not extend it in the absence of such facilities. It may not come in a day or it may not come in a year, but once that steamship line is established and you have better transportation and lower rates, then I am hopeful that our live grain merchants and our farmers will avail themselves of that market which offers to them the best terms that are given to any other nation. That is what we secure by this treaty.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR (Leeds) .: I rise, not to discuss the treaty but to correct the wrong impression that the hon. member for St. Lawrence (Mr. Bickerdike) left upon the House and perhaps upon the country. We all know that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bickerdike) is one of the most extensive cattle exporters in the Dominion.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: He said he was a farmer.


George Taylor: I suppose h.e is a farmer also. I understood the hon. gentleman to .say that owing to the climatic conditions in Canada we could not be successful in the chilled meat trade, but the hon. gentleman knows very well that practically all the chilled meats exported from Chicago pass over the Grand Trunk railway through Canada and go to England via Boston, which is a very much warmer route than via the St. Lawrence. In view of that fact how could the hon. gentleman possibly be under the impression that we cannot compete with the United States in exporting chilled meat, unless it be that he himself wants to continue in the business of exporting live cattle? I believe that we can export chilled meats just as successfully as the Americans can and I know that the climatic conditions are more favourable in Canada than they are in the United States for that trade. Every day we see train loads of Armour's beef coming from Chicago to Cot-eau Junction and the cars re-iced there and sent to Boston. If the Minister of Agriculture will introduce this cold storage system that he has been talking about for years, we can bring our meat from Winnipeg to the east, re-ice the cars in transit and deliver the meat in England just as well as they can deliver it from Chicago.


John Wesley Edwards: House divided on the motion of Mr Fielding.
YEAS:
Messieurs
Allen,	,
Aylesworth,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Blondin,
Boyce,
Boyer,
Brodeur,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm
(Antigonish), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conrnee,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Daniel,
Delisle,
Demers,
Doherty,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Ecrement,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Fortier,
Foster,	t
Fowke,
Gauvreau,
Geoftrion,
German,
Girard,
Gladu,
Gordon (Kent), Harris,
Ilodgins,
Hunt,
Jameson,
King,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lanctot (Laprairie-
*Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Laurier (Sir Wilfrid) Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Loggie,
Lovell,
MacNutt,
McCoig,
McColl,
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Montreal, Ste. Mary's), Martin (Regina), Meighen,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Molloy,
Monk,
Nantel,
Neely,
Oliver,
Osier,
Papineau,
Paquet,
Paterson,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Reid (Restigouche), Rivet,
Roche,
Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Montmagny), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sealey,
Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Stormont), Talbot,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Todd,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turootte
(Quebeo County), Turgeon,
Merville,
, Warburton,
White
(Victoria, Alta.), Wilson (Laval).-107.
NAYS:
Messieurs
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Beattie,
Blain,
Bradbury,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron),
Lake,
Lancaster,
Lennox,
McCall,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Middlebro,
Russell,

Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Edwards,
Elson,
Goodeve,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Henderson,
Hughes,
Kidd,
Schaffnei',
Sexsmitli,
Sharpe (Ontario), Sproule,
Stanfield,
White (Renfrew), W ilson (Lennox & Addington),
W right.-33.

Ministerial. Smith (Nanaimo), Rankin,
Parent,
Turriff,
Guthrie,
Opposition.
Owen,
Clare,
Wallace;,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Thoburn.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. It is a well-known rule of parliament, often applied in England, that when the finding of the Speaker on a vote is questioned, those who asked for the vote are obliged to vote negatively. This has very often been held in England by Mr. Speaker Denison. I noticed that the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Customs and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, rose and questioned your findings so that under this rule these hon. gentlemen must be recorded as voting against the motion.


Mr. SPEAKER.: I understand, from a rapid glance at the authorities, that the precedents are contradictory in the matter. The only guiding rule which we have in our rules is No. 8, which says;
l pon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered upon the minutes unless demanded by five members.
This does not indicate whether the members should vote on one side or on the other.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the second time, considered in committee, and reported.
James Kirkpatrick Kerr: When shall the Bill be read a third tome?


William Stevens Fielding: Now.


George Eulas Foster: At the next sitting.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I object to the Bill going on to-night-railroading this thing through altogether too last.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, House adjourned at 11.05 p.m.

Wednesday, December 1, 1909. The Speaker took the Chair at Two o'clock.



REPORT PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Militia and Defence for the year ending March 31, 1909 -Sir Frederick Borden.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 51), respecting the Montmagny Mutual Fire Insurance Company, and to change its name to Manufacturers Fire Insurance Company.-Mr. C. Roy.
Bill (No. 52), to incorporate the Nelson River Railway Company.-Mr. Rutan.

Mr.   A.@: MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 53) to amend the Railway Act. He- said: The sections of the Railway Act which I wish to amend are numbers 254, 294, 295 and 427. Section 294 is the one which governs the liabilities of railway companies for damages in the event of failure to erect fences, gates and cattle guards and maintain them. Section 295 refers to the same matter. Section 427 is the general section which involves a general liability in the event of failure to comply with any of the provisions of the Railway Act. Read alone, section 427 would seem to be sufficient for the purposes mentioned in this Bill, but by reason of the specific language of sections 294 and 295, the courts have interpreted the liability of railway companies, under section 427, in the event of failure to comply with the provisions respecting fences, gates and cattle guards, as limited only to such loss as may be sustained through the killing of cattle by trains and engines. The purpose of this Bill is to amend all three sections so as to extend the liabilities of railway companies to all direct damages suffered by reason of their neglect to comply with the law. Section 427 is wide enough in every respect except as regards fences, gates and cattle guards, but in that respect it is held not to be as wide as was intended, and the purpose is to make the railway company liable in case of default in that connection as they would be in any other.



QUESTIONS.


Mr. J. D. REID:: 1.	What quantity of grain of all kinds was exported from Montreal each year for the past ten years ending 1908?
2.	What quantity of grain of all kinds was exported from Montreal during the year 1909 up to the present time?


Hon. WM. PATERSON:: 1.	The quantity of grain of all kinds exported from Montreal during the fiscal years from 1899 to 1908, inclusive, was as follows:
Years.	Bushels.
1899			 34,313,023
1900			 28,644,850
1901			 32,742,243
1Q02		 22,078,573
1903			 21,960,416

Years.	Bushels.
1904	 22,233,248
1905		  14,617,221
1906		 23,266,716
1907	(9 months)	 19,422,524
1908		 27,071,331


MICHIPICOTEN DOCK.
Mr. BOYCE:: 1.	Have plans and estimates been prepared for the construction of a dock at Michipicoten river? If so, what is the estimated cost of the completion of the work?
2.	Were any persons employed by the department to obtain at Michipicoten information with respect to the site of the dock, and to take soundings, &c., or to procure other information with respect to it? If so, who were so employed, when were they employed, for how long did they work, and' how much were they paid?
VVhat amount, if any, has been expended to date m preliminary work chargeable to the dock?
4.	Have tenders been invited for the construction of the dock? If so, when were they invited, and what was the lowest tender?
5.	If tenders have not been invited, is it the intention of the department to invite tenders at an early date, in order that the work may be proceeded with?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	(a) Yes.
(b) $19,000.
2.	An engineer from the department's office at Toronto made a survey and examination and took soundings, and employed to assist him, Mr. Kimball and his son, of Mission river, on the 17th and 18th June, 1907, and they were paid, including boat hire, $7, being $3.50 for services and $3.50 for boat.
3.	$356.84.
4 and 5. Tenders invited from 31st October to 27th November. 1908. Lowest tender D. P. McPhail & Kenneth Wright, $21,550, upon which no action was taken. There is an amount for this work in the estimates now before parliament,


IMPERIAL DEFENCE CONFERENCE.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: What was the total amount expended by the government in connection with the Imperial Defence Conference, including travelling expenses and all other disbursements generally ?


Frederick William Borden: For Department of Militia and Defence $3,656.38.
3.	What is the total number of islands owned by tbe Indians and sold by tbe government, and the total amount of money received for same since 1896?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	725,517 acres of Indian lands were sold between the 1st of July, 1896, and tbe 31st of March, 1909.
2.	The total amount -of money accruing from the sale of Indian lands from the 1st of July, 1896, to the 31st of March, 1909, amounted to $2,156,020.
3.	The total number of islands owned by tbe Indians and sold from the 1st of July, 1896, to the 31st of March, 1909, amounted to 1,020, including 242 rocks or islets situate in the Georgian bay, upon which the surveyor placed no value, but which the purchasers of larger islands were allowed to acquire at a nominal consideration. The total amount of money received for the same was $74,353.



RURAL MAIL DELIVERY.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Are locks furnished the patrons owning rural mail boxes ? If so, at what cost, and where can they be purchased?


Wilfrid Laurier: Locks are not furnished.



THE ROYAL MINT.

Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	What is the amount of loss to Canada in the operation of the Royal Mint since it commenced?
2.	What is the total amount of silver on hand in the Royal Mint at present?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING:: 1.	The profit on coinage since the opening of the mint has been greater than the cost of operation, including reasonable allowance for interest on capital.
2.	On November 30, the silver on hand in the mint was:
Coin, $37,500.
Bullion, 119,000 ounces.


Mr. FOSTER  .@: That does not seem to be an answer. The hon. gentleman has not given the amount of the loss.


William Stevens Fielding: What does the hon. member mean by ' the loss '?


George Eulas Foster: The amount lost, over and above the amount expended.
INDIAN LANDS SOLD. Mr. ARMSTRONG:
1.	What is the total number of acres o Indian lands sold .by this government sine 1896?
2. What is the total amonnt of eeived from the sale of Indian 1896 ?
money relands since


William Paterson: 


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think the hon. member has made the difficulty quite clear. I have stated that the receipts on the coinage is greater than the cost of operation, making a reasonable allowance for interest on capital.


George Eulas Foster: But still we do not get any amount. Is it $1,000 or $10,000?


William Stevens Fielding: From my point of view, the inference I would draw from the facts and the opinion I would express, is that there is no loss. The question of gain or loss of manufacturing anything in Canada is an economic question. But taking the operation of the mint, we find that we have paid out certain money and that we have received certain money; and on the basis of this comparison, we have not lost anything but are largely the gainers. ~


George Eulas Foster: The minister might give the amounts he gained.


William Stevens Fielding: I will bring down a general statement of the mint, which, I think, will cover the whole matter.



TRADE RELATIONS WITH GERMANY.

Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is this government prepared to grant to Germany a similar treaty to the one accepted by the government with France?


William Stevens Fielding: I answered that question in the course of yesterday's debate.
The hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) anticipated the question and it was answered.



ARTILLERY HORSES.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	How much did the Department of Militia and Defence pay for the transport of artillery horses from the headquarters of the various batteries to the Petawawa and other camps of instruction for the years 1908 and 1909, both going and coming?
2.	What amount was paid by the Department of Militia and Defence for the hire of artillery horses for the various batteries at the camps held during 1908 and 1909?
3.	What amount iwas paid by the Department of Militia and Defence as compensation to the owners of artillery horses for animals injured during transport to and from the artillery camps during the years 1908 and 1909?
4.	Is it the intention of the Department of Militia and Defence to change the present method of providing artillery horses for the militia ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 

INSURANCE BILL-DECISION OF JUDGE LEET.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to institute an appeal from the judgment rendered at Montreal by Judge Seth P. Leet on the 24th November, 1909, in the case of the King vs. Willis Faber & Co.?

2.	Pending said appeal, if such is taken, does the government propose delaying its projected legislation upon the subject of insurance?
3.	What counsel represented the government in the suit recently decided by Justice Leet ?
4.	Has the government obtained the opinion of other counsel upon the question decided by Justice Leet? If so, who are said counsel?


Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	The government was not a party to the proceeding in question and is not advised to intervene in it.
2.	It is not intended to delay the measure now before parliament on the subject of insurance.
3.	None.
4.	None.



NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION.

Frederick Debartzch Monk: What is the total amount expended to date by the government in connection with the Quebec Tercentenary celebration, including the celebration itself, the cost of the commission, battlefields improvements, and all other incidental costs?


William Stevens Fielding: The total amount contributed by the government to date in connection with the National Battlefields Commission, for all purposes of the commission, including the Quebec- Tercentenary celebration, is the sum of $300,000, authorized by section 8 of chapter 57 of the Statutes of 1908.



POST OFFICE SITE AT STE. THERESE, QUEBEC.

Mr. NANTEL:: 1.	Has the government obtained a site for a post office in the village of Ste. Therese, in the county of Terrebonne?
2.	If so, when and from whom was the ground purchased, and how much was paid for it?
3.	Have there been other additional expenditures in connection with this post office project?
4.	When does the government intend to build it?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.	*
2.	$5,000 paid to Wilfrid Desjardins on the 6th April, 1909.
3.	Yes, $121.35, divided as follows:
Legal services	$ 44.85
Travelling expenses	 76.50

4.	I regret that I am unable to give my hon. friend definite information as to the time when construction will commence. There must first be an appropriation for the purpose.	[DOT]


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 



ARMOURIES AND DRILL HALLS IN MANITOBA.

Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	At what places in the province of Manitoba are armouries and drill halls erected?
2.	What price was paid for site in each case, and the total cost of buildings?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1 and 2. Brandon: Site, $3,100; building, $63,759.14; total, $66,859.14.
Virden: Site given free by city corporation, cost of building, $11,827.65.
Winnipeg: Built upon Crown land, cost of building, $27,492.07.



CHARTERING OF SS. ' LEEBRO.'

Mr. COWAN:: 1.	For what length of time was the steamship ' LeebroJ in the employ of the government, and from what date?
2.	What was the total amount paid for the services of the steamer?
3.	Was the steamer employed by the day or by the trip, and at what rate?


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR:: 1908-	1909.
1.	From the 4th June, 1908, to the 15th December, 1908.
From the 16th January, 1909, to the 11th March, 1909.
1909-	1910.
From the 12th May, 1909, to the present time.
2.	$57,105, including wages of crew, coal and provisions.
3.	The steamer was chartered from the 4th of June, 1908, for a period of three months at $135 per day, including wages of crew, coal and provisions, with the privilege of employing her from day to day after the termination of the charter, as lone as required at the same rate.
From the 16th of January to the 11th of March, the steamer was employed from day to day at the rate formerly paid.
The steamer was chartered from the 12th day of May, 1909, at the same rate for a period of two months with the privilege of employing her from day to day after the expiration of that time at the same price.



GOVERNMENT LAND AT NEW WESTMINSTER.

Mr. J. D. TAYLOR:: 1.	Have steps been taken to terminate the existing lease of a lot owned by the Dominion government situate at the northeast corner of Columbia and Begbie streets, in the city of New Westminster?
2.	If so, what disposition, if any, is it intended to make of the lot?
3.	If it is to be sold, will the sale be by public auction or by private arrangements ?

4.	Will the government, before sale, take steps to ascertain the value of the lot by reference to the price recently obtained for properties on opposite corners?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Existing lease of lot owned by the Dominion government at the northeast corner of Columbia and Begbie streets, in the city of New Westminster, expires on the 31st day of July, 1910.
2,	3 and 4. The government will consider at the expiration of the lease what disposition will be made of the lot.



FENIAN RAID VETERANS-RECOGNITION OF SERVICES.

Mr. WORTHINGTON:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to in any way recognize the services of those who took part in the repelling of the Fenian Raids of 1860-1870 by way of land grants or otherwise?
2.	If not, have previous deputations in that behalf been so informed?
3.	Is the government aware of .arrangements haying been made for the reception of a delegation in the matter on the 3rd proximo, and is it prepared to reconsider the question and to give a favourable ruling in the matter ?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:: 1.	The services of those who took part in repelling the Fenian raids of 1866 and 1870 were recognized by the granting of a medal under the authority of Her Majesty, the late Queen. That medal was awarded to all those who took part in repelling the raids.
2.	I am not aware that any promise has been made beyond that to which I have referred and which has been fulfilled.
3.	The government is aware that a deputation is coming to Ottawa, and the representations made by the deputation will be most respectfully heard.



DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE-MONTHLY BULLETINS.

Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	What is the number of monthly bulletins or monthly statistics distributed by the Department of Agriculture?
2.	What is the number of monthly bulletins translated into French and distributed by the Department of Agriculture?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Total number 19,400.
2.	Total number 2,400. By the Census and Statistical Branch, 7,200 English, 1,200 in French. By the Dairy and Cold Storage Branch, a monthly fruit crop report is published from May to September in each year. 12,200 copies of each issue in English are distributed, and 1,200 in French.



HISTORICAL MANUSCRIPTS COMMISSION

Eugène Paquet: Doe9 the Commission of Historical Manuscripts, established in 1907, continue its work? If so, who are the members of that commission, and what work has been accomplished by them?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Historical Manuscripts Commission for Canada established in 1907 is continuing its work. Four meetings have been held. The members of the commission are the Minister of Agriculture, chairman; the Abbe Gosselin, rectoT and professor of history, Laval University; C. W. Colby, professor of history, McGill University; G. M. Wrong, professor of history, Toronto Univer-sit; Adam Shortt, late professor of Queen's University; the Dominion Archivist; and Jos. E. Roy, of the Archives Branch.
The commission has investigated methods of classification and made recommendations on the following subjects: Publication and editing of documents, translation, classfica-tion and indexing, quest for documents.



IMMIGRATION AGENTS IN FRANCE.

Mr. MONK:: 1.	What is the total amount expended during the last fiscal year for immigration purposes in France?
2.	Is the report of Mr. Paul Wiallard, immigration agent in Paris, printed with the last report of the Interior Department, the only report received by the department on immigration in France?
3.	What is the date of other reports made during the year, by whom were they made, and will they be laid on the table of the House?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	$25,892.30.
2.	No.
3.	Arthur Geoffrion, July 20, 1908; February, 1909; March 2, 1909. Edouard Mont-petit, December 15, 1908; January 31, 1909; March 15, 1909. L. Eauclaire, June 9, 1909. Abbe Le Floch, June 25, 1909. Copies of these reports will be laid upon table upon the order of the House.



NATIONAL PARK IN SASKATCHEWAN.

Mr. NEELY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to establish in the near future a national park in Saskatchewan similar to that of Wain-wright, Alberta?
2.	What disposition as to distribution does the government propose to make with _ the herd of buffalo located at present at Wain-wright ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1. The park at Wainwright was selected as the most suitable buffalo range available at the time in the three prairie pro-

vinces, and the government has not yet considered the advisability of establishing a similar park elsewhere. Although in Alberta the Wainwright park is only thirty miles from the western boundary of Saskatchewan.
2. It has not been thought advisable to adopt a policy of disposition or distribution of the buffalo at Wainwright until the whole of the Pablo herd has been secured, which it is hoped will be next spring.



WAR VESSELS ON THE GREAT LAKES.

George Eulas Foster: For a copy of all correspondence, papers and letters in respect to the agreement between Great Britain and the United States for the maintenance of war vessels on the Great Lakes, including the agreement itself, the several requests made for permitting United States war vessels to pass the canals, and the outcome thereof, and a list of vessels which have passed the canals, with description and armament, the places where they are stationed, and the purposes for which they are used.
He said: I desire to lay before the House some information and facts so far as 1 have been able to gather them, with reference to the question implied in the resolution. I find that on April 28, 1818, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States of America as follows:
Whereas, an arrangement was entered into at the city of Washington, in the month of April, in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, between Richard Rush, Esquire, at that time acting as secretary for the Department of State of the United States, for and in behalf of the government of the United States, and the Right Hon. Charles Bagot, His Britannic Majesty's Envoy and Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary, for and in behalf of His Britannic Majesty, which arrangement is in the words following, to wit:-
The naval force to be maintained upon the American lakes by His Majesty and the government of the United States shall henceforth he confined to the following vessels on each side, that is-
On Lake Ontario, to one vessel not exceeding 100 tons burden, and armed with one eighteen pound cannon.
On the upper lakes, to two vessels not exceeding like burden each, and armed with like force.
On the waters of Lake Champlain, to one vessel not exceeding like burden, and armed with like force.
All other armed vessels on these lakes shall be forthwith dismantled, and no other vessels of war shall be there built or armed.
If either party should be hereafter desirous of annulling this stipulation, and should give notice to that effect to the other party, it shall cease to he binding after the expiration of six months from the date of such notice.
The naval force so to be limited shall be restricted to such services as will, in no re-Mr. OLIVER.
speet, interfere with the proper duties of the armed vessels of the other party.
And whereas the Senate of the United States have approved of the said arrangement, and recommended that it should be carried into effect, the same having also received the sanction of His Royal Highness the Prince Regent, acting in the name and on the behalf of His Britannic Majesty.
Now, therefore, I, James Monroe, President of the United States, do, by this proclamation, make known and declare that the arrangement aforesaid, and every stipulation thereof, has been duly entered into, concluded and confirmed, and is of full force and effect.
Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this twenty-eighth day of April, in the 3rear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighteen, and of the independence of the United States the forty-second.



JAMES MONROE.

[Stage Direction]
By the President:
John Quincy Adams,
Secretary of State.
This proclamation, therefore, brought into effect and made in every respect equivalent to a treaty, an exchange of notes that had taken place a little previously. It is interesting to find that the matter was first brought to the attention of the British gov-ernmen by Mr. Rush, the minister of the United States, who addressed a note, on the 2nd of August, 1816, to Mr. Bagot, to which Mr. Bagot replied on the 28th of April, 1817; and on the 29th of April, 1817, Mr. Rush accedes to the terms laid down in Mr. Bagot's communication, and the proclamation of the President took place thereafter, as the final act. The first fact then that confronts us is that in 1817 a treaty was made-I should call it that, because it has to all intents and purposes the effect and force of a treaty-a treaty was made unon the initiation of the United States of America between that country and Great Britain, which was in effect so long as that treaty lasted, to dominate, and control and condition naval construction and the maintenance of naval armaments on the Great Lakes.
' Needless to say that this supervened upon the war of 1812-14 and was intended to prevent any cause for collision between the two countries on the Great Lakes and also to prevent any oost of armament as between these two countries. It was a condition of that arrangement that all armed _ vessels which, at that time, were maintained on the lakes, were to be dismantled and taken out. We were to commence, as it were, with a clean sheet of water in all of that vast region and from that time onward, so long as this treaty lasted, that clean sheet of water was not to he dotted by armed vessels excepting under the limiting conditions of the treaty. As will have been seen from the limiting conditions of the treaty the armaments which were supposed to be possible were very small and insignificant. On Lake Ontario there was not
[Stage Direction]
to be more than one vessel not to exceed 100 tons, and to be armed with not more than an 18-lb. cannon; on the Upper Lakes two vessels having the same burthen and the same armament, and on Lake Champlain one vessel not exceeding 100 tons and armed with a like force. This certainly was an agreement which was not only wise in every respect, as it seems to me, but was also exceedingly economical. Now, let us place alongside of that, for this treaty has never been disturbed and
is in existence to-day, the exact state of affairs as regards the armament on the Great Lakes so far as I have been able to gather it. I have not, of course, all the information; otherwise I would not be asking the House to pass this resolution and the government to bring down more information. But, in so far as I have been able to find from looking through the Teports of the naval authorities of the United States the following table shows the condition of things to-day oil the Great Lakes:
United States War Vessels on Great Lakes.
Name.	as	Type. '	ed, snots.	Si u a	03 U 0>	Battery.	Station.	c3 G o S G <D boa	o ' '	ffi	0>	H	rfl	a	O	s	a594	Single screw, triple expansion	15	1,558	4	03	19012 1-pr. 2 Colts.	
375	Single screw, quadruple expansion.	144	1,000	4	46			1900
									
Wasp		C30	Single screw, triple expansion.	164	1,800	4	32	2 6-pr. R.F ... 4 HO cal. A.	New York State	1908
									
Don Juan de Austria	1130	Single hori zontal compound.	12-20	941	7	139			1907
(gunboat).							4 6-pr. R.F. 2 1-pr. R.F. 2 30 cal. A.		
									
									
Gopher (formerly Fern).	840		9	300				Minnesota 		1905
									
900	8 30	310	1897 1906Sandoval (gunboat)..	103	Single screw, vertical compound.	23	2 3-pr. R.F.... 2 colts.	New York State, (Rochester).	Nashville [gunboat).	1371	Twin screw, vertical quadruple.	16 30	2,524	11	171	8 4-in. R.F.-.. 4 6-pr. R.F. 2 1-in. R.F. 2 30 cal. A.	Illinois	19071375	..	10'40	800	19044 6-pr. 2 1-pr. 2 colts.	
Wolverine (gunboat).	085		1050	365		75	6 6-pr. R.F.... 2 1-in. R,F.		
									
							1 30 cal. M.		
							1 30 cal. A.		
The 'Wolverine' is a training ship belonging to the United States, not in the service of the state naval militia as the others are, and its duties are the drilling of the naval militia, recruiting, generally perambulating the lakes and showing the flag. All except the ' Wolverine ' are vessels which have been transferred to the naval militia on the Great Lakes and all have been passed up-most of them within the last few years -through the canals under the authority and with the permission of the Canadian government.
Frederick William Borden: That would be state militia.


George Eulas Foster: State naval militia. So that we have as a total ten vessels of 8,000
tons displacement, 30 officers and 549 men, as far as I have been able to get the number. There were several vessels, the names of which I read but the complements of which I could not find stated in the reports. There are 24 6-pounder rapid-firing guns, 10 1-pounder rapid-firing guns, 14 4-pounder rapid-firing guns, 8 3-pounder rapid-firing guns, 9 30-calibre ' A ', 1 30-calibre ' M ' and 6 colts.
I find that the 'Wolverine,' in the course of the last two years, has been visiting most of the ports of the Great Lakes, has been busy recruiting for the United States naval reserve, drilling, manoeuvering and generally showing the flag. This naval state militia is kept up in two ways. The states themselves make an appropriation

and the United States also makes an appropriation which is distributed amongst the states for the different stations and vessels. Something more has been done for amongst	the accounts 1
find these items:	For naval training
station, there was an appropriation in 1909, of $1,095,600 and an estimate for 1910 of $413,400. There was expended in 1907-8 a total of $1,939,611, as far as I can get at the figures. That was expended by the United States government in erecting buildings and equipping a naval training station on the Great Lakes. I find also that there was a coterminous appropriation by the United States for a naval hospital building, of $250,000 and that that building is now progressing. These then are the two contrasting pictures: First, there was an agreement between the two countries, absolute, in force until to-day, without a shred of correspondence, so far as I can learn from either country, looking towards its abrogation and yet under that condition of a solemn treaty and agreement, there is a very considerable naval force consisting of state naval militia and of buildings and naval training stations, hospitals and other things contributed to or maintained directly by the United States of America. I find from what correspondence has come down that the larger part of these vessels have gone up within the last eight years. Some correspondence was previously brought down to the House and from it we learn two or three things:	For instance,
that when the United States wish one of these vessels to go up, having come to the conclusion to lend it to the naval militia of a state, they make application to the British Minister who makes application to the Dominion government to take it into consideration and that the Canadian government in every case, so far as the correspondence that I have seen goes, have granted the permission and have done so speedily and with very little reserve. I notice that in 1907, when the 'San Juan d'Austria' asked to go through, the British minister refers back to ithe case of the 'Essex and says:
In 1904, the 'Essex' was passed on the assumption that the United States government did not contemplate departing in anv way from the existing treaty stipulations relevant to the maintenance of warships on the Great Lakes. It is presumed, therefore, that the Canadian government would, in the present instance, wish a similar condition to be made.
From the correspondence I do not find that any similar condition was made and the vessels were passed up on two conditions. One was that they should not be armed while passing through the canals or water-reaches of Canada to reach their stations and the other that they were to be used for training purposes. That is, no armament was allowed whilst they were passing through Canadian waters and the Mr. FOSTER.
general condition was attached that they were to be used for training purposes and confined to that use.
In the case of the 'Nashville' on February 15, 1908, what appears to be another step was taken, for we find the British Minister
says:
The whole question of armed vessels on the Great Lakes has been referred by His Majesty's government to the Imperial Defence Commission and His Majesty's government will further consult your government (that is the Dominion government); but pending results of the discussion, do your ministers, in the case of the 'Nashville,' see any objection to permission being granted?
The ' Nashville ' was passed through in 1909, and, it is said, received her armament at Buffalo after she had safely passed the dangers and difficulties of the canal passage. I do not propose to make any criticism with reference to this matter at present, but wished to draw the attention of the House to the existing staite of affairs which had not come to my attention until I looked into the matter, and possibly many other members of the House may not have been aware of it; certainly I do not think the Canadian public is quite aware of the situation as it has developed. I find that the state naval militia or naval reserve of the United States on the great lakes is of the following enrolled strength:
Illinois	 629
Michigan	 177
Minnesota	 117
New York	 583
Ohio	 143
Total	1,649
It may be that a portion of the New York militia is at New York on the Atlantic side, but I was not able to ascertain that definitely. Thus there is a body of men trained as a naval reserve, 1,649 in number, that would be available on an hour's notice for any work on the Great Lakes in connection with the purpose for which they are organized. Of course the United States maintains revenue cutters on the Great Lakes, but they are not within the terms of the treaty, and I cannot find that any larger number are kept there by the United States than are necessary for their customs work, nor do I find that they are at all formidable vessels.
If it was good policy in 1817 to mitigate the cost of maintaining vessels and de- [DOT] crease the probabilities of armed collision on the great lakes by a treaty between these two great countries, a solemn engagement to keep their expenditure within a certain amount and their armament and vessels within a certain limit, it certainly ought to be good policy to-day. I am not, of course, oblivious to the fact that great changes have taken place. An 18-pounder

then might have been a formidable gun, but to-day it would not be considered in a very high class as regards armament. A vessel of 100 tons was the same size then as it is now, and if all that -was required at that time was a vessel of that size, possibly all that is required for the same work today would be a vessel of that size. I do not imagine that the waters of the lakes are any more stormy or their navigation any more difficult than in 1817, and as there is no armed force threatening our neighbours in the United States, they did not need to have either heavier vesesls or heavier armaments in order to protect them from danger. But even if it be argued that the times and circumstances have changed, there is one way to bring about a change in respect to the subject I have mentioned, and that is for the two countries to agree upon the amount of change that is necessary and, having agreed upon that to modify, if necessary, the old treaty to that extent. But it certainly cannot be argued that so long as the same intention exists, and so long as the same treaty exists, either party would be justified in going beyond the terms of the treaty without first striving to have a new arrangement made to permit what they might call the improvements that are necessary owing to the progress of things. There has been a vast growth in wealth and in population since 1817. That is just where the importance and pos-siblv the danger of the position arises. I speak with bated breath in the presence of the coming Lord High Admiral when I say that I do not imagine that our equipment on the Great Lakes is at present verv formidable. I do not think that all the bristling guns and towering decks that we have there for the purpose of either defence or training have caused a shudder to run down the spine of Uncle Sam in the last few years, and so led to the extension of his naval defences and armaments on the Great Lakes. I am not sure that the little boat which we have there has a gun on her at all. I think at one time she had one, but it seems to me that I have heard a rumour that men were apt to injure themselves with so unusual piece of machinery, and so it was removed. However that may be, I am safe in saying that we have not been threatening our neighbours in that respect. Now, if population and business interests have increased, if trade has grown and great cities have arisen, on the Great Lakes, so far as the United States is concerned, this is also true of Canada; and what I want to bring to The attention of the House and to the attention of the people of Canada to-day is this, that as matters stand to-day in actuality, our whole lake population, our whole lake wealth, and our whole lake trade, are absolutely at the mercy of the armament which the United States has on those lakes to-day. I read the armament and the vessels; and if it did so happen, as I hope it never may happen, that difficulty arose, within 24 hours the whole lake trade, with all our improvements for the conveyance of trade, would be absolutely at the mercy and in the hands of the United States of America. If you take into account the relative equipments of the two countries on the lakes, Canada has absolutely nothing, while the United States has the armament which I have mentioned. While we may be all advocates of peace and may be all believers in peace, most of us believe in some sort of insurance, and if hostilities did arise between the United States and Canada, what protection would we have under present circumstances that would be worth a single rush leaf? We have none, and from the top of Ithe Great Lakes, where our great continental railways make their connections with the water, all down through the ports and harbours, with their docks and other equipment for trade, our canal system at the Sault and our canal system between Lakes Ontario and Erie, our cities on * the lakes of Ontario down to Kingston and the Thousand Islands, and still further our communications along the River St. Lawrence-all of these would be absolutely at the mercy of a force under the flag of the United States, which is quite sufficient to annihilate for the time being our trade. This is a state of things which evidently ought not to exist; and though we be the greatest advocates of peace and the most optimistic believers in peace, there is absolutely no insurance in that respect. No business man would put his business in such a condition of risk, and Canada itself surely cannot feel that it ought to do so. But a strange thing took place, to which I must refer. Although we have not had information in this regard, the government has had plenty of information, and that information has been collated and the Minister of Marine has evidently gone pretty particularly into It. He has made calculations and has raised a claim for non-participation in the naval defence of the empire by telling the empire, at the conference in London in 1907, -what risks there were to Canada and what a burden Canada had thrust upon her, and what a burden the minister had specially thrust upon himself, in order to safeguard our interests on the Great Lakes. I think it is well that I should read the portion that refers to this matter, although I read it the other day. Although no such information had been given to us in Canada, the Minister of Marine and Fisheries made this statement at the conference:
We have to-day on the lakes a boat which is an armed boat.

I can understand how the members of the conference pictured in their minds this contribution to the imperial navy, being used to seeing in the Thames the great 18-mile procession of warships, the armed boats of the empire. No doubt their imagination flew easily to the turreted ship or the armoured cruiser which the minister was talking about as a great burden economically and a great engine of defence.
We have to-day on the lakes a boat which is an armed boat, which is looking specially after the protection of our fisheries against the American fishermen, not only for the carrying out of the local regulations, but mostly and I may say almost exclusively for preventing the Americans from coming and fishing in our waters. We have on the Great Lakes (large seas, properly speaking) American states bordering these great lakes, and they are having navies of their own now. I think that three states bordering on the three great lakes, Ohio, Michigan and Illinois are spending not less than $15,000,000 themselves for keeping up a navy on these lakes,

One unit that Canada was asked to present would cost that amount, maybe a little more-
-and are drilling their men on the shore of the lakes. Besides they have some ships which are not on-because it would be against the conclusions of the treaty-but built in order to be prepared in case of emergency.
So that the minister himself there makes a statement tantamount to this, that we have been allowing these vessels to. pass through our waters provided they were unarmed, but with the perfect knowledge that after they got into the lakes they were ready for a case of emergency. My hon. friend says:
Besides they have some ships which are not cn-because that would be against the conclusions of the treaty-but built in order to be prepared in case of emergency. As far as Canada is concerned one of the first duties we shall have to look after is onr protection in connection with the great lakes. I may say that the wars we have had since 1763, since Canada has become part of the British empire, came from the "United States. We had an invasion in 1775, we had an invasion in 1812, and we had the Fenian Raid in the 60s. All those invasions came from the United States, so we have to look especially in that direction to protect ourselves, and I may say we have been doing it as far as the Great Lakes are concerned, not to a very large extent it is true, but to the extent of spending a sum of money which is quite important for a country of the size of ours.
It seems to me that proves a very thorough and complete knowledge on the part of the government of just what has been going on in the Great Lakes; and whilst we have been asking in this House for information, we have never got anything so full as Mr. FOSTER.
the minister communicated to the imperial conference in 1907.
It also shows that in the minister's opinion so great was the burden thrown on Canada to make proper provision for protection against possible enemies on the Great Lakes, that it was sufficient to put that forward as an excuse for not making a contribution or should be counted as an important contribution to the naval outlay of Canada.
My whole purpose is to call the attention of the premier to this matter and particularly the attention of the government. I do not say that it may be found practicable that modifications should take place on both sides as regards the keeping of armaments on the Great Lakes, but any armament maintained there should be in accord with treaty arrangements and not in violation of the terms of the treaty now existing. It may be that there is some argument for reasonable modification, but I do hope that as between the United States and ourselves, on these bordeT-line waters, consisting of the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, it may never become necessary for the two countries to spend large amounts in vieing with each other in the building of warships. But the present condition of things is one which I think should give us some cause for reflection. When we look at the immense value of property along this line of Great Lakes and realize that, in contravention of the treaty, there is a formidable armed force on the other side and absolutely nothing on ours, that condition is sufficiently grave to warrant our making some move in the matter. What action has taken place I do not know. I am told that negotiations have been going on and the right hon. the Prime Minister may perhaps be in a position to give us more information than we have had up to the present. It may be that there are confidential communications, and of course I am not asking that confidential papers be brought down, but simply that we should be given such information as can properly be divulged and to which we are entitled, and if the resolution passes, it will pass with that understanding.


Wilfrid Laurier: The observations of my hon. friend would have been more apposite if, when following the attention of the country to a condition of things which must cause anxiety to everybody and certainly to the government, he had been able to suggest a remedy. My hon. friend premised his remarks by stating that we have a convention with the United States since 1817 limiting armaments on the lakes. Under its conditions, four war vessels only are allowed in what waters are between the two countries. This agreement has been in existence nearly one hundred years and has served a very good purpose. Since the United States have reached their present

development, the states -which border on the Great Lakes, have been pressing the Federal authorities to participate in the war expenditure which has been going on from time to time in these states. The Federal government could not do so unless the conditions of the convention of 1817 were interfered with, and I shall not say that although perhaps they have not been absolutely maintained, they have been unfairly interfered with. My hon. friend knows that the tdnure of life of that convention is a very slender thread. It can be put an end to in six months time:
If either party should he hereafter desirous of annulling this stipulation and should give notice to that effect to the other party, it shall eefise to be binding after the expiration of six months from the date of such notice.
If the American government so desired, they could put an end to the treaty in six months' time. They could give that notice to-day or at any time. Under the circumstances, what are we to do? My hon. friend says we should have a modification of the treaty. That is more easily said perhaps than done. He may say put an end to the treaty, but that would be worse. In that case whatever armament might he established on the one side, we would have to. follow suit. My hon. friend will realize that the condition of things is one in which we ought to be very careful as to what we do and what we say; and I do not think that perhaps he has served as good a purpose as no doubt he had in his mind in bringing this matter to the attention of the country as he has done. It is a matter which has been engaging our attention again and again. When we were at Washington in 1899, at the time of the Joint High Commission, it engaged the attention of the two parties. There were mod^jpations suggested then but we'could not* agree, and the matter was left as it stood. Even had that conference resulted in an agreement, 1 do not know that it would have come to a conclusion on the point in question. There is correspondence of a nature that can be brought down and I shall be glad to lay that on the table, but there is also other correspondence of a confidential nature, but such papers as can be brought down I shall submit to the House.
Motion agreed to.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of all papers in connection with the alleged securing and sale or distribution of passes on the Intercolonial railway within the last two years, and also of all papers of every kind in connection with the alleged padding of pay-lists on the Windsor Branch railway, and the resale of mutilated railway ties to the government.-Mr. Foster.
Return showing all casualties and accidents attended with danger or loss to human life that have occurred in the Marine and Fisheries Department owing to the operation of Pintsch and acetylene gas as an illuminant for each year, since 1880, together with a copy of all papers and reports in connection therewith.-Mr. Foster.

Mr. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Portage la Prairie).: Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to call the attention of the House and of yourself to the position of a member of the House, the right hon. the first minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) in connection with his dual capacity, sitting as he does for Ottawa and also for Quebec East. I take it for granted that if I were to ask the right hon. the first minister whether he has yet made up his mind for what constituency he will sit, I should receive the same reply as did my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) a week ago. If 1 am wrong, I can be corrected, and in that case there is no need of my proceeding further. I propose, however, to argue that-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: May I ask the hon. member (Mr. Meighen) how he desires to bring the matter up?


Arthur Meighen: By putting the question to you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the right hon. the first minister can, at the present time, refuse longer to elect for which seat he will sit.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I would like to hear an expression of opinion on the subject. I do not know that the argument can proceed at this stage.


Arthur Meighen: I cannot express an opinion without reference to the authorities-


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) is clearly out of order. He cannot argue the question at this stage. Possibly, in a few minutes, the House will be moved into Committee of Supply when he will have an opportunity. But, at present, he knows he cannot speak.


Arthur Meighen: Is it not" a question of privilege?


Wilfrid Laurier: No privilege that I can see.


Arthur Meighen: As I understand the rules, it is a question of privilege. A matter referring to the seat of any member of the House is a question of privilege? *


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Had I had prior notice, I should have looked up the question. But, unfortunately, I was not notified. I cannot allow the discussion lo take place at this stage. We have a rule which says that



no matter of this kind may be brought up in this way.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you will allow me to cite the authorities.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: If the hon. member invokes the rule, he must do it by motion. There is nothing before the Chair, and we cannot proceed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Cannot the hon. member proceed on a question of privilege?


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the privilege?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: As a question of privilege, I will not-[DOT]


Arthur Meighen: It is well known that the first minister does sit at the present time for two seats. It is true that his election for one of the seats was contested, and, as a consequence, until that protest was disposed of or dissolved by the courts, no election could be made. The protest related to the seat for the city of Ottawa. It was brought up by motion on the 29'th of June last in Toronto, and the right hon. the first minister was confirmed in his seat. It would enable me, perhaps, to make my remarks briefer if I were to put the question to you, Mr. Speaker, whether or not you have received from the judges, as provided under section 58 of the Controverted Elections Act, any certificate or report as to how this election protest was disposed of? Under this section of the Act, the judges are bound, immediately at the conclusion, to certify, to you, by way of report, the result of their finding. I trust I have made my question clear, whether or not you have received, in pursuance of sections 58, 59 and 60, of the Controverted Elections Act, such a report as to the disposal or dissolution of the protest respecting the status of the right hon. first minister in regard to the seat for the city of Ottawa?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I can inform the hon. member (Mr. Meighen) that anything I have received is on the records of the House.	.


Arthur Meighen: That was all I could expect.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Had I been notified of the question, I could have prepared myself to give the information exactly. I think a matter of this kind should be given notice of and that we should not be taken unawares.


Arthur Meighen: Your answer, Mr. Speaker, is quite sufficient for me-that if the report has been received it is on the records of the House.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It suits the hon. gentleman (Mr. Meighen), but it does not suit the Speaker to he taken unaware. I think The SPEAKER.
that, by the rules of the House, the hon. member might be required to give notice of his question.


Arthur Meighen: But the answer, I apprehend, can be given without notice. The answer is quite satisfactory.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: But the Speaker is not required to answer. It is a matter of the records of the House.


Arthur Meighen: That being the case, it must be that, the election protest never having come to trial, the judges did not certify to you, Mr. Speaker, the result which they found on the 29th of June last. However, whether or not that is the fact, or whether or not it is necessary under the Controverted Elections Act that it should be received, does not, as it seems to me, affect the status of the right hon. Prime Minister. Under the rules of the House, and under the statutes, there is no regulation in force in this country in the way of a time limit within which a member who has been elected for two seats must elect which he will sit for. Consequently, the matter comes under the provision of rule 1 of the House of Commons, which brings into force in all such cases the rules, regulations and orders in force in the British House of Commons on the 1st of July, 1867. Now, the rule in force in the British House of Commons on the 1st of July, 1867, was this: That, in case of a member being elected for two seats, he should, within one week, elect which seat he will sit for or, in the event of protest, that he should make his election within one week after the disposal of that protest. I would refer you to page 424 of Bourinot, where the rule of the British House is very clearly laid down. It is also clearly laid down in May, at page 652; and in May particularly it is shown that this rule which is now in force in the British House of Commons comes into force by sessional order at the commencement of each session, and has done so since at least 1842, and was therefore in force on the 1st of July, 1867. A case is pointed out in May where Mr. Daniel O'Connell, on the 24th of May, 1842, was compelled to elect as to which of two seats he should sit for. Consequently it has evidently been in force since the 24th of May, 1842, and was consequently in force on the 1st of July, 1867. Therefore, in the absence of any sessional order of this House, and in the absence of any statute, we must follow the sessional order of the British House, which was in force on the 1st July, 1867, and which would have required the right hon. gentleman who leads this government to make his selection within one week after the disposal of the protest, and after the meeting of the House of Commons. That is to say, that following the correct practice, the right hon. gentleman should have made his elec-

tion as to which seat he would sit for within the first week of this session. The first week, of course, is now past. The question of privilege, therefore, I have now spoken to. I had purposed, Mr. Speaker, asking for your ruling as to whether the right lion, gentleman is now properly withholding his election as to which seat he will sit for; but if you prefer my question to stand as a question until to-morrow, I am willing. But I do purpose asking for your ruling as to whether the right hon. gentleman can longer withhold his election in this matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: If your ruling, [DOT]Mr. Speaker, is that I must make my election, of course I shall have to do so at once. But I might give you my views; I do not know if you have any ruling to make on this point. For my part, I have no objection at all. I may say to my hon. friend, however, that I was particularly anxious to make a choice between Quebec and Ottawa, but so far no one in the city of Quebec and no one in the city of Ottawa has asked me to make a choice; therefore, I was waiting until I was prompted by some of those gentlemen who have done me the honour to elect me to both seats. But if I am not within the rules of the House, I shall have to put myself within the rules when I know what your ruling is.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I will give my ruling to-morrow.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT - INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHTS.

Mr. H.: LENNOX (South Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 41) tto amend the Criminal Code. He said; A year ago, among the amendments introduced by the Minister of Justice to the Criminal Code, I suggested this amendment. At that time the Minister of Justice, after taking time for consideration, was of the opinion that the amendment was a good one, I presumed, at all events, he offered no opposition to it, and it passed. The amendment is to secure those persons who have valuable copyrights in dramatic productions against the unwarranted infringement thereof. At present they have no remedy except to bring action against the person who infringes their copyright, and as the person who steals the copyright has usually no worldly substance the aggrieved persons are practically without remedy. I am instructed by the parties who wish me to bring this matter before the House, that in many instances those dramatic productions are worth a royalty of $500 or $600 a night, and notwithstanding that a spurious imitation is presented to the public by some wandering troop, the head of which has no substance by which he can answer in damages, and therefore the party entitled to 26i
the royalty is defrauded of his rights and is practically without remedy. At the time when I brought this matter forward last year, not only the Minister of Justice but the Minister of Agriculture as well, who is interested in matters of this kind, were in the House, and as I recollect the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture at that time, he did not see any objection to it. But I must add that he also said that he had not had an opportunity of studying carefully the wording of the clause I introduced. I have no personal interest in this matter, though I think it is a matter of public importance. I understand that the copyright laws are defective in this respect, as well as in some other respects, and I offer this amendment as an improvement upon the law as it now exists. At the time I presented this amendment last year, the Minister of Justice had then, as an amendment of the same section, a provision in reference to musical competitions. That, I understand, emanated from the Minister of Justice himself and this was a further subsection to the same section of the Criminal Code. The subsection of the Minister of Justice with reference to musical compositions went to the Senate with this subsec-section that I introduced with reference to dramatic compositions. As you will recollect, Mr. Speaker, both of these amendments were introduced in the last days of the session, they, went over to the Senate and, as I am instructed, without any reasonable consideration, these two clauses were struck out.. I therefore move the second reading of this Bill in the hope that the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Agriculture will consider the matter, and in the hope, from what took place last year, that they will see the advisability of having this amendment again enacted and sent to the Senate.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I note what the hon. gentleman (Mr. Lennox) says and I can say quite frankly at once that I quite agree with his amendment to the Criminal Code for the purpose of dealing with dramatic copyright. I am not lawyer enough to say whether the wording here is exactly correct, but I believe it is, and I am quite willing to leave it to my hon. friend on the other side of the House and the Minister of Justice who says it is correct. My hon. friend is quite correct in saying that last year my colleague, the Minister of Justice, introduced an amendment to the Criminal Code in regard to musical copyright. Both of these amendments were sent to the Senate but the Bill did not pass. I do not think that these clauses were in any way objectionable to the Senate, but some other clauses proposed were. I think it would be well therefore that these clauses should be incorporated

in a Bill independent of other amendments to the Criminal Code. I would like, before the Bill advances beyond the committee stage, to suggest -that a clause with regard to musical copyright should be included with the clause proposed by my hon. friend.


Mr. LENNOX.: I should be very glad.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: We would then have an opportunity of dealing in this way with this amendment to the Criminal Code in so far as the question of copyright, including both of these points, is concerned. Therefore, I am quite willing to ask for the second reading of this Bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committe thereon.
On section 1,
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend says that these are the exact words of the amendment last year?


Haughton Lennox: Yes, they are.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: Before we proceed further I would ask that the committee rise and report progress until we can secure the other amendment which I suggest inserting in this Bill and which will be prepared for a future sitting of the House by the Minister of Justice.


Haughton Lennox: That would be quite satisfactory.
Progress reported.



INSPECTION AND SALE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to amend ' The Inspection and Sale Act,' so .as to provide that when potatoes are sold or offered for sale by the barrel, the barrel shall contain one hundred and sixty pounds.
Mr. J. D. REID.: The Prime Minister, the other day raised the question that this was interfering with provincial rights as far as the weighing of potatoes was concerned.


Wilfrid Laurier: For my part I saw no difference between potatoes and bread, but this House saw differently, because I find some years ago there was a Bill passed on this very same subject of potatoes.


John Dowsley Reid: Then, is it all right to proceed with bread? Are you going to object to bread?


Wilfrid Laurier: Well, we will stick to potatoes.
Resolution reported, read the second time and agreed to.
Mr. FISHER
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 54) to amend the Inspection and Sale Act.


Haughton Lennox: Perhaps we might get the opinion of the Minister of Agriculture as to whether this does invade the rights of the provinces.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not prepared to give a legal opinion upon that point. I find in other statutes the same kind of provision, and that being the case I take it that parliament is acting within its legal rights.


Haughton Lennox: Would the minister be disposed to get the opinion of the Minister of Justice upon the point?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I shall certainly do so.


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

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on the following proposed resolution:
Resolved that it is expedient to amend ' The Seed Control Act/ (a) by making regulations determining the standard of vitality of seeds; (b) with regard to the freedom of certain seeds from weeds; (c) prohibiting the sale, offering, exposing or having in possession for sale, for the purpose of seeding, any seeds of alfalfa, if there are present in any mixture any noxious weed seeds in a greater proportion than five to one thousand of the seeds sold, offered, exposed or had in possession for sale; and (d) prohibiting the sale, offering, exposing or having in possession for sale, for seeding, certain seeds not having the standard percentage of vitality, unless every receptacle containing such seeds is marked with the name of the seed and the percentage capable of germination.-Mr. Fisber.
Sydney Arthur Fisher: I wish to add to section 2, subsection 1 of the original Act, which defines what regulations the Governor General in Council may make, another clause authorizing us to make regulations determining the standard and vitality of seeds, fixing a minimum percentage of vitality. It is also proposed to bring Alfalfa under the provisions of the Act in the same way as other clover and grass seeds. The percentage standards of vitality for good seed are made by regulations of the Governor in Council under the Act. The following are the percentage standards of the various kinds of cereals, grasses, clovers, forage plants, field roots and garden vegetable seeds:
Kind of Seeds.	Standard.
Cereal grains (including indian corn). 95 p. c.
Peas and vetches	
95	"Beans	
90	"Clovers (including alsike and alfalfa) 95	"Flax	
95	"Millet	
95	"Timothy	
95	"

Cocksfoot, brome, meadow fescue, blue
grass	
85	p.c.Rye grasses	
80	"Mangels and beets	
90	"Turnip, swedes, rape, radish	
95	"Cabbage	
93 "Cauliflower	[DOT] 90 "Carrot	
80	"Parsnip	
65	"Celery	
60	"Curcubits	
90	"Onion	
90	"Tomato	
90	"Lettuce	
90	"


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like t-o ask the minister whether in the proposed Bill any provision is made for stamping on small packages of seeds the date when the seeds were put into the package? This is a matter of considerable interest in the province of Ontario. For example, a wholesale seed merchant puts small packages of seeds into a box and sends them to the retailer. The retailer sells a number of the small packages during the season, and in many cases returns the unsold packages to the wholesaler. There is a complaint that the wholesale merchant continues to send out these packages, year after year, without any investigation as to whether any vitality is left in the seeds or not; and it is suggested that the wholesale merchant should be required to put on all small packages of seeds he sends out for sale the date on which the seed was put into the package, so thpt the farmer or gardener buying it would have some assurance of the vitality of the seed.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite right as to that point, except that the provisions of the Act cover it and more. When the standard of vitality is fixed, it does not matter whether the loss of vitality is due to the age of the seed or to any other cause. By the amendments to the Act, the percentage of vitality in the seed is fixed. In the case my hon. friend refers to, there are some seeds which are perfectly good for many years, while others are not good for more than one year. The average buyer is not usually aware which seeds are good for many years and which seeds are good for only one year; but the law, as we propose to make it, will require a certain percentage of the seeds in each package to be vital. In that way the buyer is protected better than he would be by having the date put on the package. I may say that in the discussion which occurred before this amendment was decided upon, with the seed growers and the seed users; especially in Ontario, where the seed commissioner met these people, that point of the date was not insisted upon or asked tor.


Richard Blain: I can understand very well that those engaged in the seed trade would not ask for it.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am speaking of those who buy the seed.


Richard Blain: But the legislation of the government does not always meet the requirements of the farmers. The minister's explanation is satisfactory to those who understand it; but the farmer or market gardener would have to wait one year to find out whether there was vitality in the seed or not, whereas it would be a plain measure of protection to him if the date were on the package. As my hon. friend knows, these seeds are sold by every class of merchant: the druggist has them on his counter, and these people do not make any pretense of knowing anything about them. A child comes in and buys a package of seeds for five or ten cents and takes it to the gardener, who plants it. I do not see any objection to requiring the date to be put on the package, and I think it would be of great value and quite satisfactory to the purchasers of seeds. I am quite sure that many of these seeds are kept in warehouses for years until every particle of vitality has left them.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend must not suppose that we have been discussing this matter chiefly with the men wno sell seeds. The representations that have come to us have been largely those of the association known as the Vegetable Growers of Ontario. Thev are the purchasers of seeds in large quantities, and they are especially interested in the seeds being right. They have not asked that the date should be put on the packages and do not think it necessary. I am afraid it would be a delusion rather than a protection. There would be nothing to prevent false dates being put on packages of seeds offered for sale. Of course, we could make that a criminal offence. But at the same time it would be almost impossible for us to prove it. No analysis we could make would prove that they had actually put the old seeds in. All we can prove is whether the seeds are vital or not.


Richard Blain: The one would not interfere with the other.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no objection to doing it if there be any way of doing it which would be of use to the purchasers. The purchaser might think he was getting protection, whereas he really was not. I would not trust the date on a packet, but the testing of the seeds in the laboratory will show whether they are vital or not. If they are vital, I do not care in what year they were grown.


Richard Blain: I am not referring to the case of farmers who buy seeds in large quantities, but I am speaking of the thousands of small packages sold in small towns where they have small gardens. A

merchant lays in a stock of some hundreds of small packages of seeds. At the end of the year he puts the unsold packages away to be sold the coming year. His customers are buying the old seeds, whereas if the Act were altered so as to compel the wholesale man to put a date on each packet, the consumer would know how old the seed was which he was purchasing, and would not buy seeds which had probably lost their vitality through age.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I am not adverse to the suggestion, and am quite willing to look into the matter. In the majority of cases at the end of the season, the packages which are not sold by the country store keeper are taken back by the wholesale merchant. There would be nothing to prevent the wholesale merchant from putting seeds taken from the package of one season into a package dated the following season.


Robert Laird Borden: Flow does it work out in actual practice? Suppose the seeds are sown after they have lost their vitality through age, how is the standard enforced?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The Act provides that any purchaser may take a sample and send it to the government laboratory and get it tested, and the results are li wful evidence in a court of justice. We prosecute in many instances, and the individual has recourse under the common law for damages. We always ask purchasers to buv their seeds long enough before seeding time to be able to send them to be tested and have a report back before th y are sown. If thev do not do that, it is difficult to prove the lack of vitality in the seeds.
Resolution read the second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 55) to amend the Seed Control Act.


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

Hon.   WM@: TEMPLEMAN (Minister of Irdand Revenue) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inland Revenue Act.


Richard Blain: What difference will this Bill make in respect of the sale of cigarettes in Canada?


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: It will have no effect that I can see.


Richard Blain: Then, why the change?


William Templeman: We are providing for the admission of cigarettes in packages of Mr. BLAIN.
twenty-five. There is no provision now, and we have no inland revenue stamp to put on packages of twenty-five. Consequently, when such packages come in, they have to be broken up at the custom House and repacked, so that we may put stamps on them in conformity with the law. Whether the change will have any effect on the sale of cigarettes, I do not know positively, but I do not think it will.


David Henderson: It seems to me that it might have a very material effect. To reduce the size of the package, the minister will see, will be to facilitate the sale of cigarettes which the minister does not desire to encourage.


William Templeman: I do not think the hon. member's argument is sound. There are already packages smaller than twenty-five-the package of ten is probably the commonest package. The sale of cigarettes has decreased by about 30,000,000.


David Henderson: I am not a cigarette smoker and am not informed as to the handling of them.


Richard Blain: At whose request was this change made?


William Templeman: At the request of the importers. Hon. members will see that it is quite lawful to import cigarettes, and the law provides in what sized packages they shall be stamped. There is no provision fol- a package of twenty-five, and when such packages come in there is the expense and trouble of repacking. The importers request that this should be changed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 12) respecting a certain supplementary convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic.


Mr. MARTIN BURRELL (Yale-Cariboo).: Without wishing to delay the House, at this stage of the Bill, I would like to present a few considerations with regard to the treaty generally and also to refer briefly to one or two remarks made on the second reading by hon. members opposite. The Prime Minister and his colleagues laboured to show that this was a very good treaty in the interests of Canada and especially of the agricultural classes. Although I was not in the House when the treaty was first brought down two years ago, and had an open mind on the subject to some extent, I have failed to be convinced that there is strong reason for ratifying the treaty at thS" present time. I speak particularly from the point of view of one industry with [DOT]which I have been connected for some time,

fruit-growing, and especially the culture, of the grape. While, in British Columbia, we are not very heavily interested as yet in the production 0f grapes, in my old home district, the Niagara peninsula, this is a very important industry. There are at present about 18,000 acres in vineyards, the land used being expensive, with fairly expensive methods of cultivation involving some years before any results are obtained.
I remember when, in 1883-86, the grape-growers, of whom I was one, were fortunate enough to get from eight cents to ten cents per pound for their crop. Naturally, this price decreased as the area of cultivation was extended, until, in 1890, the price obtainable was only about four cents gradually decreasing to less than a cent and a half. At these figures, it was problematical whether there would he any return to the grower. It was at this time that the wine-making industry was inaugurated, improving the market and affording relief to the growers. Another assistance to the growers was the establishment of the canning industry. The effect of these new industries was to steady the whole market for our fruits by relieving congestion and taking care of what would otherwise have been a surplus product. The result was better prices for the product and a stimulus to the industry generally. So far as the grapegrowing industry in Ontario is concerned, the effect of this treaty must be to unsettle the minds of those embarked in this wine industry. In the fruit district in which I lived, one manufacturer was crushing from 400 to 600 tons of grapes every season. It can easily be understood what a relief it would be to the growers to have such a market for their product. As I understand the matter, these wine-producers apprehend that the lighter wines of France, those under twenty per cent proof spirit on which the duty is reduced, will have the effect of increasing the competition with not the most desirable class of French wines. Feeling that, as I believe they have ground to feel, they believe that the treaty is not a good one for this country as it affects the grape-growers. And the same may be said to some extent in regard to the canning industry especially as regards vegetables.
Now, I wish to refer to one or two things that were said in the debate yesterday. So far as I can find out, the attitude taken by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. - Monk) may, to some extent, be the true one. That hon. member says that this treaty is neither good nor bad; it does not offer any great advantages nor does it involve any serious disadvantages. But I understand that it is to cost, indirectly, something like $200,000 a year-that is, in subsidy to a line of steamshins. They also indulged in heavy expenditures for our plenipotentiaries when they went at great expense to this country to put that treaty
through. I have been unable to see that the cost in connection with * these two matters will not far more than outweigh any monetary benefit we will gain under the treaty. If we come to some of the remarks that were made by the Minister of Customs yesterday in pointing out some of the expected benefits, they were effectually dispelled, so far as cattle are concerned, by the hon. member for St. Lawrence Division, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike), who stated that Canada could not expect to get any benefit from trade with France in respect to our cattle. So out goes from the argument one of the chief benefits which we were told would come to us from this treaty. If there was one part of that treaty which seemed to promise us any benefit, it might be in fat cattle. But here again we find that little consideration has also been knocked out by the supplementary treaty. I think, however, that my hon. friends opposite have themselves been the prodigal sons and have sacrificed the fatted calf in this respect on behalf of the French government.
Now let me refer to another matter. I was much struck with the speech of my right hon. friend the first minister. He addressed himself to the argument of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk), who had said that in the main France was a self-supporting country, and being largely agricultural she would not therefore require many of our agricultural products. If I understand the right hon gentleman aright, he gave us to understand that France was the very reverse of such a country, and the fact that she imported such an enormous amount of agricultural products was a proof that she would becpme a most valuable market for our agriculturists. Now, if the right hon. gentleman will allow me to say it, I think his remarks were rather disingenuous, because while it is true that he was careful to speak of the imports of France-and I do not dispute his figures -he forgot to make any mention of her exports, which would put a different face on the whole situation. Let me take up one or two items. I will take an item which my hon. friend the Minister of Customs spread himself over, and that is butter. It is perfectly true, as he said, that large quantities of butter are imported into France. But far from that fact promising us a heavy market in France for our butter, I think the contrary will be the' case. Now, I am not quoting from last year's imports into France, but I have before me the Statistical Abstract published by the British government, covering each year from 1896 to 1906. I find that while France, in 1906, imported actually 15,964,000 francs worth of butter, she exported in the same year 53 972.000 francs worth of butter.
Now I will take up the question of eggs. It is rather astonishing to me to infer from * the First Minister's remarks that the

French hen was by no means equal to the occasion, that she was not laying enough eggs to supply the French people, and the Canadian hen, therefore, would find lots of room for her products in that market. I think the first minister stated that about 6,000,000 francs worth of eggs were imported into France. Well, in 1906 I find no entry of the import of eggs, tout when I turn to her exports of eggs, I find that France in that same year exported 14,720,000 francs worth. I might go on and follow down this table and deal with eggs, fruit, vegetables and things of that kind, which would show similar results. When we come to the item of potatoes, I find that France although no figure is given here of imports, exported 28,000,000 francs worth in 1906. She also exported 12,000,000 francs worth of fruit and vegetables over and above the value of her imports in those lines. I think the House will at all events get some clear idea of the nature of the first minister's argument, and will agree that it was rather misleading. We might have assumed that France was importing much in excess of what she was exporting, and that therefore we would find a ready market for our agricultural products in her market, whereas the contrary is evidently the case. In the markets of Great Britain you will find that France js our most serious competitor in respect of many of those articles. No member of the government will attempt to argue that France offers us a better market for grain than the world's great market where we all have to meet each other on an equal footing. France does not give any inducement or any lower tariff to Canadian grain.
There was another thing which struck m3 as rather strange. The first minister took occasion to animadvert on the attitude of my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) when he said that my hon friend had been doing a great deal of talking against the French treaty, and yet he was perfectly sure that he would vote for it. But surely the first minister is the last gentleman in the world who should find fault with people who talk a long time one way and then vote another way. When we look at the hon. gentleman's career, and remember that in 1896 he talked for two or three months steadily in one direction and then voted in exactly the opposite direction, and when we remember how often since 1896 up to 1909 he has voted and acted contrary to his previously expressed principles, we must admit that he is not in a position to criticise my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier. It does seem strange to me that the Minister of Customs, who in stentorian tones-I think that is the proper word-previously to 1896 almost shouted himself hoarse in advocating free trade if possible, is now shouting himself hoarse in exactly the opposite direction.


Martin Burrell: It is an extraordinary thing, and I will be only too glad if, when they come to speak to the farmers in connection with this treaty, they will make some effort to show what they mean by free trade. In 1906, when they were talking about revising the tariff, a large meeting of farmers in Toronto expressed their views to the government on tariff matters. I find here a little article in the official organ of the Liberal party, the Toronto ' Globe ':
The memorial declares a genuine alarm, at the aggressive campaign of the protected interests, cites the promise that protection was to be only a temporary aid to allow the manufacturers to secure a foothold, and points out in contrast the continuous demand of the full grown and even gigantic industries for greater favours. It is argued that the protection accorded by the tariff enables manufacturers of certain classes of agricultural implements to charge Canadian consumers 25 per cent more than the value of the articles, and permits an overcharge of from 30 per cent to nearly 50 per cent on the cheaper lines of farm carriages.
I must say that one of the most singular phenomena, I think, in the whole history of our trade matters and our fiscal matters in Canada is the fact that gentlemen like my hon. friend the Minister of Customs who, as I say, talks himself hoarse previous to 1896 saying that he was going to abolish all these things, now stands up in this House to speak on behalf of those who are protected at the rate of thirty and even thirty-five per cent. This is the position that I find in connection with this treaty, and I have to apologize for taking up so much of the time of the House. I do not believe the treaty will be any good when it goes into operation, but I do believe that in some degree it will do a certain amount of injury to the agricultural classes, and that is the explanation of my complaint against it.


William Stevens Fielding: The particular point with which my hon. friend (Mr. Burrell) began his speech, that is the objection of the grape growing industry, was very fully considered when this treaty was before the House in its earlier stages. I remember that a deputation of gentlemen representing that very important industry came down to Ottawa and were heard at very great length. It was not unnatural that they should be somewhat anxious about that particular part of the treaty to which my hon. friend refers. I remember that when the treaty of 1893 was adopted by the House there was similar alarm on the part of the grape growers of the country; yet, I think that experience has shown that they probably did not suffer anything like the injury that they had anticipated. I will not undertake to speak for the grape growers, but I think I am justi-

fied in saying that the full discussion of the question that took place at that time tended to relieve their anxiety. They made at the same time one or two suggestions as to advantages which they thought might properly be conceded to them, to relieve them of what they thought might be an embarrassment and a disadvantage. Their suggestions in that direction were very carefully considered. Although the moment for action has not yet arrived I think I can safely say, as to one particular thing which they desired, that there is every disposition on the part of the government to meet them and that we anticipate that by the time this treaty is finally dealt with in such form as to make it effective such concessions will be granted to the grape growers or the wine makers-probably I should say the wine makers, although both interests are very closely identified-as will make them reasonably satisfied, and I anticipate that we shall not hear any serious complaints from them.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that experience had demonstrated that the treaty had not done them any harm. Have there been any importations of wine under the original treaty sinpe we discussed the question two years ago?


William Stevens Fielding: The explanation is to be found in the fact that Canada is not a wine drinking country. The fear that large quantities of these French wines would come in was expressed when the treaty of 1893 was before the House, and yet I think statistics will show that the importation of these wines did not greatly increase. I have no doubt that we will have the same experience under this treaty. Our friends the French are producers of wines and naturally they will ask in making a treaty that regard shall be had to the things which are their particular specialties. Whilst they asked for some concession on wines we felt that we might give to them that, but at the same time we frankly told them that Canada is not a great wine growing country, nor a wine consuming country to any large degree.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was that concession greater than they had under the treaty of 1893?


William Stevens Fielding: I presented the figures when the treaty was up for discussion and they will show as to that, but my recollection is that there was no very material increase in the consumption of the light French wines. Even though the treaty did give them some advantage our people are not a wine drinking people to any great extent. There may be some increase; if it were not so I suppose the French people would not have desired it. But, I do not think there is going to be any alarming increase in the drinking of wines because of this treaty. If our people want to drink they will drink other things which perhaps are not so good for them as these light wines would be.
But, the argument for this treaty may be put in a rather brief form. Suppose we begin by asking ourselves: Is it desirable that we should have a commercial treaty with France? I am sure there is hardly a member of the House who will sav 'no' to that proposition. Almost every member who addressed the House, while taking exception to some particular part of ihe treaty, said: Surely, we want a treaty with France. Let us assume that that is unanimously agreed to or nearly so; are we satisfied that the present treaty is sufficient? Any hon. gentleman who will give the matter his careful consideration must reach the conclusion that the old treaty, which may have had some good qualities, which was a step in the right direction, was a very incomplete and unsatisfactory treaty and that if we desired to have a treaty with France it should be a broader one than the old treaty of 1893. The world has moved since that period. I am not attacking the treaty of 1893, I am not finding any fault with it, I am simply pointing out that whatever may have been its value since that time circumstances have changed and it fails to meet the conditions of the present day. It we ivant a new treaty we must learn to give and take. It is the easiest thing in the world to say: Why did you not do this, and why did you not get that? Anybody who has to do with bargaining in any way knows that it takes two to make a bargain, and I think that would be a reasonable view to take in reference to this question, and that we should ask ourselves if the Canadian government, by making every reasonable effort, have been able to secure such concessions as seem to promise now or in the future some advantage to Canadian trade. I might put it to a test in this way: Would anv hon. gentleman stop and think and ask himself what article of Canadian output,* in the way of agricultural produce, or the produce of our factories, or our mines, or the sea, would he desire to see sent to France which is not included in the treaty? Although hon. gentlemen may think there are things in the treaty which are not of great value, it will be difficult, I think, for any hon. gentleman, who will give the question careful attention, to name an article which Canada is now exporting that is not included in the treaty. If that be true then I think it is not unreasonable to believe


Richard Blain: What about fatted cattle?


William Stevens Fielding: I say to my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) frankly that while we

thought it desirable that cattle should be included we were by no means sure that we were going to do a great trade in that, and when I found that a small concession upon that point would be the means of disarming hostility in the French Senate I had to ask the question: Is this privilege a valuable one? I made the most careful inquiry I could make, from my hon. friend from St. Lawrence, Montreal (Mr. Bickerdike)-though I did not come into immediate touch with him-and I ascertained that that gentleman, from his own personal experience, was able to certify that the privilege of selling fatted cattle in France was not a valuable privilege, and was one, which, if given to us under the treaty, we were not likely to exercise. Therefore, we were making a concession which served a very excellent purpose from the point of view of our French friends, but which from the point of view of Canada was not of very great importance.


Richard Blain: I would like to ask my hon. friend if he could name a list of articles produced upon the Canadian farm in which the trade with France will increase because of this treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: I am not going to boast of that. The worst that can be said of these things is that we get the privilege of the treaty for them. If we cannot do any business in that line nobody is hurt.
Now, hon. gentlemen call our attention to the fact, and dwell upon it, that we put grain in the treaty-that we have the benefit of the minimum tariff on grain. But they say there is no minimum tariff on grain in France and some ungenerous soul said that you are humbugging the people, you are conveying the impression that you are getting a concession on grain when you are getting none at all. That is a very short sighted view of the situation. Suppose we had not put grain on the list. France would have been free to enter into an arrangement with the United States and give them a concession on grain and would have been free to deny it to Canada. And so we stipulated that although we sget no concession to-day grain should be put on the list in order that if at any time France should grant a concession on that article to any country in the wide world, she must also give it to Canada. Is that not something of value to us? Suppose we had proceeded differently. Suppose we had left grain out of the matter altogether, and suppose a year later our enterprising American brethren should make a new treaty-and they are trying to make a treaty now-in which they obtained a lower rate on their grain than we had on Canadian grain entering France, every hon. gentlemen opposite would have stood up and said: What, were these men about, why had they not Mr. FIELDING.
sense enough to foresee that condition and guard against it? We happily did see it and guarded against it. It gives us no concession for the moment, it does not give any advantage, the hon. member for Yale (Mr. Burrell) is quite right in saying that on grain we are not getting more than any other country is going to get. Sir, no nation, least of all a great nation like France, will give to any country a monoply of its trade. All that any country can expect to get is the agreement that at any time she shall not be placed at a disadvantage as compared with any other country. That guarantee we have secured as respects the articles mentioned in the treaty. But there is another consideration of great importance which has not been referred to in the recent discussion. The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) said it was very desirable that Canada should make many treaties of commerce with the nations of the world. My hon. friend from East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) specialized. He said:	You ought not to mind this
French treaty but ought to make a large, liberal treaty with Germany. I shall not stop to say whether he was right or wrong. The reasons why we dealt with France and did not for the moment deal with Germany are well understood. I hope we will yet be able, in due course, to deal with Germany. But I wish to point out the effect of the various criticisms that have been offered. Suppose we had taken the view of the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) had agreed to make a treaty with Germany and granted certain concessions in our markets to Germany, I wonder if my hon. friend is aware that we would then have been obliged to give every concession thus granted to Germany to France without any return at all? There is in the old treaty of 1893 a provision-again I say I am not finding fault with it, at the time it may have been the best for the moment-which is the strongest justification of our making a new treaty. The old treaty of 1893 contains this clause:
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.
Observe the wording, ' any commercial advantage.' That was not a reciprocal privilege. There is no clause in- that treaty which says that any commercial advantage granted by France to any foreign country shall be granted to Canada. There is a condition in it that if any commercial advantage be granted by France as respects the small list-and it was a very small list -of articles mentioned, to any other country, then on the items in that small list, Canada should get an equal advantage. But for all the thousand and one things outside of that small list, France was left free to discriminate against Canada. But:

Any commercial advantage granted by Canada to any third power especially in tariff matters shall be'enjoyed fully by Prance, Algeria and the French colonies.
My hon. friends will see that while that clause remained in the treaty unrepealed, while that treaty remained outstanding- and it is outstanding and in operation today-if we had made a treaty with Germany as suggested by the hon. member for East Lambton, every concession that we granted to Germany in that treaty we would be obliged to give to France- and we would get nothing in return. The argument of my hon. friend for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) was deeper and wider. He said it was desirable that we should make treaties with all the nations. Very well, the more treaties you make the stronger my argument becomes. If you had made a' treaty with Germany, with Belgium, with Italy, with the United States, with any country in the world, then whatever advantage you gave to that country in the markets of Canada, for compensation which might have been adequate, you would be obliged to give to France without any compensation at all. That is the position to-day and is the strongest argument that this old treaty should be got rid of. We went to the French government and said:	That is not a fair deal, that is
not reciprocity; you give us favoured-nation treatment upon a few small items, and ye, in return, have been obliged to give you favoured-nation treatment upon the whole range of your products; we think that is not fair, we do not think that you should ask us to do it any longer and we ask you to make it reciprocal. And now it is reciprocal. We have an agreement that upon the list of articles mentioned in that treaty, upon one side or the other, there shall be favoured nation treatment. That is to say, if France shall grant to any country any favour of a commercial character with respect to any one of the items named in that list of our Canadian products, she must also give that advantage to Canada; and, per contra, if we grant any favour to any country as respects the corresponding list on the other side of the treaty, we must also give that to France. That is reciprocity, that is fair. This is an aspect of the question that I would like my hon. friends opposite to understand. I am sure they will see the reasonableness of my argument. While the old treaty remains we are crippled, we cannot negotiate with any .foreign country because any concession that we might grant to any foreign country we would be obliged to give to France for nothing. I think that argument is exceedingly strong; to my mind it is one of the strongest arguments in favour of getting rid of the old treaty and adopting the new one.


George Eulas Foster: Would it not have been perfectly possible for the minister to get rid of the old treaty without making a new one?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, and if we got rid of the old treaty we would be in the position that at any time other countries could get an advantage in the markets of France that we could not get. We could have asked the British government to denounce the treaty, and I have no doubt they would have done so, although they would be reluctant to adopt such a course. They would have done so, I have no,doubt, because it is their pride and our pride to recognize tire fact that in all these matters affecting trade, the imperial government desires us to have and exercise the largest possible measure of independence. The freedom which Great Britain now gives us in the negotiation of these treaties is something for which we should all be grateful and proud, and I am sure if we had asked Great Britain to denounce that treaty she would have done so -but would have done so with great reluctance. As was pointed out by one hon. gentleman who spoke yesterday, after years of estrangement France and Great Britain had been brought together and there seemed to be a prospect that they would now work together for their mutual advantage and the promotion of the peace of the world. At such a time it would not have been wise for Canada to have asked for the denunciation of that treaty.


Thomas Chisholm: Might I ask the minister if the wine growers in Canada are to have the same advantages as the wine growers in France in regard to the excise on the alcohol that is necessary for the fortification of the wine?


William Stevens Fielding: I think there has been a misunderstanding. The wine growers were of opinion and represented to us that in France those who produced wine were permitted to take alcohol in bond for the purpose of fortifying their wines, and the wine growers of Canada asked for a similar concession here. I investigated the matter and found that they were mistaken, that the wane growers of France did not enjoy any such advantage. On that point I think the wine growers are now satisfied that they -were mistaken and they are not asking that concession. They are asking a concession of another character which I think is reasonable and which I hope may be granted to them.


Robert Laird Borden: What was the nature of that concession?


William Stevens Fielding: It was- in regard to the use of sugar. If we can make proper customs regulations to guard against abuse,

we are desirous of exempting from duty the sugar which they may use in the production of their wine.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
House in Committee of Supply.
Public buildings, Quebec-Quebec detention hospital in Savard Park-repairs, &c., $1,000. _
["p. TURCOTTE. It is a very simple thing to explain this matter. St. Roch, as hon. gentlemen know is represented by the right hon. the Prime Minister. It was proposed a long time ago to have a public building erected there. A new post office is necessary there because the main post office is now in the upper part of the city and this is a very important business centre. At present there are two post offices; one in St. Roch and one in St. Sauveur. As the result of an agreement these two services were combined and it was proposed to erect one new post office on the main street of St. Roch, St. Joseph street, in the centre of a locality where there are many important industrial establishments, a large population and extensive commerce. The price was not very high. It was fixed by arbitrators and I can assure the committee that it was agreed by all people in that locality that this action of the government was in the public interest. The building is not quite finished and all the commercial and industrial people in the locality are anxious to get the benefit of this new public building. Commerce in that locality is increasing rapidly and population is also increasing and so it is fair to say that the action of the government was a proper one.\nSome resolutions reported.\nHouse adjourned at six o'clock.", 'Thubsdat, December 2, 1909.']
Hon.   WM@: PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works.) This' amount is required for repairs, and also to build a proper fence around the lower portion of the yard. This is under the Immigration Department.


George Eulas Foster: What is the building worth?


William Pugsley: It is a two story brick building on a stone foundation, 115 feet in length by 100 feet in breadth. I do not know the cost of it.
Quebec immigration buildings-additions, renewals, repairs, &c., $6,000.


William Pugsley: There was an appropriation for 1909 of $7,500, and there was expended up to the 31st of March, $2,180.95; so that there remains of that vote $5,319.05. It is proposed to spend $2,000 in building a covered way to the building, $595 on the old Marine hospital and $3,419.30 on the immigration buildings generally. This is asked for by the Department of Interior.
Quebee observatory-renewal of water supply pipe, &c., $1,800.


William Pugsley: This is asked to make provision for the renewal of 1,200 feet of water-supply pipe which runs from the Grande Allee to the observatory.


George Eulas Foster: What is the size of the pipe?


William Pugsley: Three-inch cast-iron pipe. The cost of the pipe is $600 and the cost of the excavation $1 per running foot.


George Eulas Foster: How deep do you go?


William Pugsley: Below the frost line, I would suppose five or six feet.
Quebec post office-elevator, improvements, repairs and fittings, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is asked to make provision towards placing an additional story on the head post office building, also to provide an elevator to the ground floor, first and second floors and the attic, also rewiring the building for electric light, and repointing the exterior wail. The total expenditure up to the 31st of October, 1909, was $14,224.62. The estimated cost of rewiring the building is $1,800; raising one story of the extension at the rear, 66 feet Air. FIELDING.
by 35 feet, $12,000; providing for hot water, $1,000; repdinting the extexuor of the building, $5,000; steamfittings, $1,500; contingencies, $1,644. That makes the total cost of the proposed improvements $37,168.62. Then there is the expenditure from 1st April, 1908, to 31st October, 1908, $14,224.62; assumed expenditure to Alarch 31, 1909, $1,794; revote, $7,000; new vote, $13,000. Total, $36,018.62, which still leaves an estimated amount of $1,150 to complete the improvements.


George Eulas Foster: What do you get in the way of space?


William Pugsley: We get an additional story on the extension in the rear of 66 feet toy 35. This accommodation is very much required by both the Post Office Department and the Customs.


George Eulas Foster: Do you get any other extension besides that rear extension?


William Pugsley: That is the only one. We are also putting an elevator into the building and making quite a number of improvements indicated in the details I have given.


George Eulas Foster: What is the cost of the whole?


William Pugsley: Up to the 31st March, $298,000. That of course runs over many years.


George Eulas Foster: It must be in pretty bad state of impairs now. .


William Pugsley: It requires considerable repairs.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Is it used for a post office alone?


William Pugsley: It is used for post office and customs purposes.
Quebec custom house, $50,000.


William Pugsley: 
George Eulas Foster: How much will it cost?


William Pugsley: If we enter upon the construction of a new customs house, that would cost in the vicinity of half a million dollars. If we repair the present customs

house, that will cost between $50,000 and $75,000.


George Eulas Foster: It is very important that we should repair the old house unless we have money to burn. Here you have a customs house, which is pretty well situated, and, although injured by fire, may be repaired at a trifling cost. If the minister can do his work there fairly well, we should consider very carefully before going into an expenditure of half a million dollars because the Harbour Board wants us to do so. There does not seem to be any limit at all to the excursions which the Minister of Public Works is willing to take in the matter of public buildings.


George Taylor: I understood the minister to say that the customs work was done elsewhere and that this building was simply down at the shipping centre for the use of landing waiters. My opinion is that it has no business to be down there. There ought to be a building rented or some other provision made for having that building in another part of the city. I understand the customs house is in connection with the post office.


William Pugsley: They use the customs house proper for offices.


George Eulas Foster: This is for a warehouse.


William Pugsley: There are customs officials who have offices in the building. The post office is used simply for the postal parcel business in connection with the customs.


George Eulas Foster: What was this place used for which was damaged by fire?


William Pugsley: Perhaps I might be allowed to make a few remarks regarding the manner in which the question of removal has come up. Immediately after the fire, which destroyed a very considerable amount of other property, the question occurred to the Transcontinental Commissioners and the Harbour Board whether it would not be desirable to utilize the space burnt over in connection with railway terminal facilities for the Transcontinental. It has been represented to me that, in the opinion both of the Harbour Board and the Transcontinental Commissioners, there is no part of the city which could afford as good opportunities for providing these terminal facilities as this area which has been burnt over. If that part were selected for the terminal facilities, that would necessitate the removal of the customs house to another place. I do not wish to be understood as saying that this site will be given over to the Transcontinental or the Harbour Commission. If they take it, they will have to pay the Department of Public Works what the property is fairly worth. If it should form part of the Transcontinental railway terminal facilities, of course the
Grand Trunk Pacific will pay a rental on the cost. It is a matter of very great importance. It has not yet been decided what we shall do, but it is certainly worthy of most careful consideration.


George Eulas Foster: Does the Minister of Customs require a half million dollar building there?


William Paterson: That matter is with the Public Works Department. I do not know what the building may cost.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand the Minister of Customs (Mr. Paterson) to say that he abdicates his position entirely with reference to the working of his department in this respect and leaves the matter to the Minister of Public Works? The hon. gentleman (Mr. Paterson) is responsible to the country for the expenditure of his department, and he must have an idea what facilities he requires. Does he want a half million dollar plant, or will a less expensive one do?


William Paterson: I am responsible for the expenditure of my department, but this does not pertain to the expenditure of my department. We have been burned out and must go somewhere. We are temporarily using the present premises, I fear at great inconvenience to the officers. We wished to rent a building there, but the commissioner thought-and his opinion was concurred in by the Public Works Department-that the rent was such that it was not advisable for us to pay it. What we want is to have a custom house in which the business can be properly transacted.


George Eulas Foster: What does the hon. minister think would be a proper provision to give him a .place for his work? Does he think it would cost half a million dollars?


William Paterson: I cannot express an opinion on that.


George Eulas Foster: Then, better let this item stand in the meantime until the Minister of Customs has made up his mind. For I am ready to fight this thing all winter, if necessary, unless we get the views of the Minister of Customs as to what he wants. This method under which the minister whose work is to be done has no wish, desire or plan as to the buildings to be erected for the work of his department, but leaves it entirely with another minister, is one which we have not recognized in this House, This building, if required at all, is required for the work of the Department of Customs. The Minister of Customs, as the head of that department, is the man who ought to requisition the Minister of Public Works for a sufficient building for the service.


William Paterson: That is what we have done.


Mr.   POSTER@: Then, does the hon. minister agree that an expenditure of half a million will be required?	-


William Paterson: I have not seen either the estimates or the plans.


George Eulas Foster: Then, I think the estimates and the plans had better wait.


William Pugsley: I think I can satisfy the hon. member (Mr. Foster). When the estimates were made up and this item of $50,000 put in, the money was intended to repair the custom house building which had been injured by the fire, since that time, we have had this urgent request to remove the custom, house to another site. If we do that, it will necessitate the erection of a new building. In that case, of course, we would sell the present site and building for what they are worth to either the Harbour Commissioners or the Commissioners of the Transcontinental railway. But, before I can properly ask this committee for a vote to erect a new building, I ought to be in a position to state definitely the character of that building and where it is to be erected. Therefore, I would say to the committee that unless we utilize this vote of $50,000 to repair the present custom house we will let the item lapse and come to the House and ask for another annro-priation for the new building.


George Eulas Foster: That is perfectly fair. Now, all we have to look at is the sum of $50,000. Is that sum required to repair the present building?


William Pugsley: That is the architect's estimate.


George Eulas Foster: What are the figures in detail?


William Pugsley: I have not the details of that estimate before me. But I may say that the attic and half the first floor were completely destroyed.


George Eulas Foster: What was the cost of the building?


William Pugsley: About $400,000.


George Eulas Foster: If the minister will make it cleaT in the item that this is for repairs, that will make it all right.


William Pugsley: Perhaps the committee will take my assurance upon that. I do not feel competent to alter the estimates.


George Eulas Foster: But


William Pugsley: Of course, if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) says so, the alteration -can 'be made.


William Stevens Fielding: So long as the amount is not changed, or the meaning destroyed, it can be done.


William Paterson: 


William Pugsley: Then, there is no objection.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The item will read:
Quebec custom house-repairs, $50,000.


William Pugsley: I would'suggest that we pass -over the items for military buildings and go on with that relating to the Quebec East public building.
Quebec East-public building, $40,000.


William Pugsley: This is^ to provide for the completion of the public building now being erected on the corner of St. Joseph and Dorchester streets in Quebec East, frequently spoken of as St. Roch. The building is required for post office purposes.


George Eulas Foster: Post office purposes alone?


William Pugsley: Yes. The building is to be 49 feet by 48 feet 3 inches; three stories and basement; wall of brick faced with cut stone on the street fronts and stone dressings on the remainder. The estimated cost is as follows: Site, $23,400; legal services, printing, advertising and architect's commission, $1,006.50; paid to the contractor on account of his contract to October 31 last, $18,680, making a total expenditure to that date of $43,086.50. The amount due on the contract is $29,031. We have been obliged to purchase additional land which cost us $3,770. The cost of heating and boilers will be $2,500; electric wiring and fixtures', $1,- [DOT] 000; fittings, furniture and lock-boxes, $5,000; sidewalks and fences, $1,000; contingencies and superintendence, $8,319. This makes a total estimated cost, including site, of $9,762.50. The total expenditure to October 31, already given, is $43,086; estimated expenditure prior to March 31, 1910, $10,676, so that this vote of $40,000, of which $20,000 is a revote, will make up the entire expenditure.


George Eulas Foster: What was the amount of the contract?


William Pugsley: 


George Eulas Foster: How did the minister get the site, $27,000?


William Pugsley: $23,400 was the first payment. The site was valued by arbitrators.


George Eulas Foster: What was the reason for the additional $3,770?


William Pugsley: We found, in locating the building, that the lot was not quite large enough, the site would be cramped, and we had to purchase additional land.


George Eulas Foster: What were the dimensions of the first site?


William Pugsley: 66 feet frontage on the two streets, the lot is 66 feet square. Then it was decided to set the building back a little from the street, and we found there was not space enough in the rear, and we had to buy an addition of 10 feet, I think, in order to give the requisite light.


Mr. MAGRATH.: Does the minister know the revenue of that postal division?


William Pugsley: For 1908-9 it was $14,623,60. Money orders issued, $70,692; money orders paid, $7,484. It is a very important division of the city of Quebec. As hon. gentlemen are no doubt aware, by reason of the configuration of the city, there are to all intents and purposes so far as post office requirements are concerned two cities, there is a.n upper city and a lower city. The erection of this building has been strongly urged by the Postmaster General, and he satisfied the department that it was absolutely essential for the accommodation of the public.


George Eulas Foster: What is the population to be served by that office?


William Pugsley: About 40,000.


Mr. CROCKET.: Does the $47,000 contract cover the heating and wiring?


William Pugsley: No, just the building.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were tenders called for heating, wiring and other matters?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: Does not the minister think the language of this item is rather indefinite? It says: ' Quebec East, public building'. It does not say whether it is for a post office or not. Does he not think we should specify what the money is required for?


William Pugsley: There is only one public building in Quebec East, that is the building under contract. Last session we put in a vote in exactly the same terms, so I do not think it would be desirable to make any change.


George Eulas Foster: I would suggest that you add the words ' post office ' after the words ' public building'.


William Pugsley: There is no objection to adding those words.


George Eulas Foster: What is the present cost of the service, and where is it being carried on?


William Pugsley: In St. Roch, the rent paid for the post office is $700 per annum, in St. Sauveur, $225. The total is $925. This one building will accommodate both divisions.


Charles Alexander Magrath: The minister said the Postmaster General supported the construction of this building. Is it the custom of the Department of Public Works always to get the support of the Postmaster General before post offices are constructed?


William Pugsley: Not always.


George Eulas Foster: Before this building was planned, was there any communication between the Department of Public Works and the Postmaster General as to the nature and kind of building he wanted in which to carry on the post office work?	.


William Pugsley: Yes, there were a number of consultations, in which the Postmaster General informed us what was the accommodation required; and plans were submitted to the Post Office Department and approved.


George Eulas Foster: Of course the minister sees what he is doing. Whereas to-day you are paying less than $1,000 for accommodation, the yearly cost of this new building will be close on $10,000.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend estimates a 10 per cent basis, I think that is considerably too high.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think so, from 30 years experience. It will come to that.
Mr. BLAIN, How are sites of buildings of this kind selected in the province of Quebec?


William Pugsley: 'The same as in all the the other provinces of Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In the province of Quebec are sites furnished by municipalities free to the government, or does the gov-ernmept pay for them?


William Pugsley: I have not observed any difference in the custom in the province of Quebec from the custom in other provinces. Sometimes the sites are furnished. I can call to mind cases in which sites have been furnished by municipalities in Quebec as well as in other provinces.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the rule?


William Pugsley: The rule is that the department purchases the sites in all the provinces of Canada.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In St. Catharines, two years ago, the government insisted on the city paying $6,500 for the land before they would erect a public building. That is in Ontario.


William Pugsley: That is a matter of agreement. In Quebec there are large numbers of public buildings constructed on sites which are purchased by the Crown. I have now in mind Shawenegan Falls, in

the province of Quebec, where the county and the municipality furnished the site free. In Iberville I think the same way. I have never found that there is any difference between one province and another in that respect. Occasionally sites are furnished free, but in most cases we have to buy them.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand the minister to say that this price was fixed by. arbitration.


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: How are the arbitrators appointed-one by the Department of Public Works and one by the owner of the property?


William Pugsley: Yes, and these two generally chose a third.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The property not expropriated but submitted to arbitration?


William Pugsley: Yes, and the price agreed upon.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the minister able to state that the price fixed by arbitration was greater or smaller than the price offered by the owner?


William Pugsley: My recollection is that the owner did not make any offer as to the price he required because he was informed by the department that it would be necessary to fix the value by arbitration.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Who were the arbitrators? The minister having in mind the fact that they were very able men should remember the names.


William Pugsley: I satisfied myself that the department was represented by a thoroughly competent and reliable man, but I cannot at present give my hon. friend the name because I have no memorandum of it. I -would have no objection at all to submitting the name later on.


Richard Blain: The reason I ask the minister if there is any difference in the selection of sites in the province of Quebec and other provinces is. on account of an article that I haye before me from the province of Ontario. It says:
Pergus post office-Liberals hold meeting to decide on. the site.
Pergus, Dec. 1.-A public meeting of local Liberals was held to-night for the purpose of recommending to the government a site for the proposed post office. Four sites were voted upon, the final vote giving the Monroe property a majority of six over the Watt property.
It seems to be the policy at Fergus in Ontario, that when a site is to be selected the Liberals are called together, the different sites are submitted and voted upon, and I suppose that the policy will be that the Mr. iPUGSLLY.
majority shall rule. I want to know whether the same policy is applied in Quebec and other provinces or whether the minister is going to abolish this in favour of the new policy which he is introducing.


William Pugsley: There is no policy in Ontario, or any other province, by which we accept the recommendation of the Liberal committee or of anybody else in the locality as to the selection of a site. Of course, we cannot nrevent people in a locality, no matter what political party they belong to, making a recommendation as to what, in their judgment, would be the best site for a public building. But we do in every case send one of our own officials to make an examination of the site, to compare the price at which one site can be obtained with that asked for other eligible sites and to make his report and recommendation as to which in his judgment is most desirable for the public building. In the case of Fergus we sent a very experienced representative of the department^ to that town and it was upon his examination and report that the purchase of the property was made.


Richard Blain: Would my hon. friend state to the committee which of these properties was selected?


William Pugsley: We will come to that when we reach the Ontario items, and I would ask my hon. friend to wait.


Richard Blain: I am quite willing, only T want to give a note of warning to my hon. friend.


William Pugsley: I will have the information.


Richard Blain: I hope my hon. friend will state whether it was the Munro site or the Watt site.


William Pugsley: Yes, I will.


Richard Blain: Then we are to understand that in no province of Canada are the local Liberals consulted with respect to the location of sites?


William Pugsley: I will not say that. My hon. friend will see the reason. It might very well be that when our representative goes into a locality he naturally confers with the most intelligent, the most influential and the most disinterested people, and he would get their views.


Richard Blain: If that is the policy of my hon. friend it would not take his officers long to consult the Liberals of Ontario now.


William Pugsley: That makes the work easier.


Richard Blain: Yes, it makes it easier and very much cheaper for my hon. friend.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Did my hon. friend state what the dimensions of this lot were?



William Pugsley: 66 feet square and then we made a subsequent purchase of 10 feet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: At what price per foot?


William Pugsley: The first purchase amounted to $23,400. That would be about $6 per square foot. The second purchase was made at $6.50 per square foot.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was it a vacant lot?


William Pugsley: There may have been some cheap buildings upon it, but it was practically a vacant lot.


Richard Blain: The member for the city (Mr. Turcotte) is suggesting what the site is. I think it would be only fair to the committee, he being a resident of the city, that he would explain it.


Mr.   J.@: p. TURCOTTE. It is a very simple thing to explain this matter. St. Roch, as hon. gentlemen know is represented by the right hon. the Prime Minister. It was proposed a long time ago to have a public building erected there. A new post office is necessary there because the main post office is now in the upper part of the city and this is a very important business centre. At present there are two post offices; one in St. Roch and one in St. Sauveur. As the result of an agreement these two services were combined and it was proposed to erect one new post office on the main street of St. Roch, St. Joseph street, in the centre of a locality where there are many important industrial establishments, a large population and extensive commerce. The price was not very high. It was fixed by arbitrators and I can assure the committee that it was agreed by all people in that locality that this action of the government was in the public interest. The building is not quite finished and all the commercial and industrial people in the locality are anxious to get the benefit of this new public building. Commerce in that locality is increasing rapidly and population is also increasing and so it is fair to say that the action of the government was a proper one.
Some resolutions reported.
House adjourned at six o'clock.

Thubsdat, December 2, 1909.