1909-11-18

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Guet.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons, estimates of sums required for the service of the Dominion for the year ending on the 31st March, 1911, and, in accordance with the provisions of ' The British North American Act, 1867,' the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House,
Ottawa, 18th Nov., 1909.

On.motion of Mr. Fielding, His Excellency's message, together with the estimates, was referred to the Committee of Supply.



SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER presented to the House the report of the special committee appointed to prepare lists of members to compose the Select Standing Committees of the House, as follows:
[Stage Direction]
No. 1. ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS.
Messieurs
Aylesworth,	Kyte,
Barker,	Lafortune,
Barnard,	Lancaster,
Borden, (Halifax),	Lapointe,
Bristol,	Lemieux,
Brodeur,	Lennox,
Bureau,	Lewis,
Carvell,	Macdonald,
Chisholm (Antigonish),McColl,	
Cowan,	Maddin,
Crocket,	Major,
Crothers,	Martin (Regina),
Demers,	Meighen,
Devlin,	Monk,
Doherty,	Northrup,
Dubeau.	Porter,
Emmerson,	Pugsley,
Geoffrion,	Rhodes,
German,	Rivet,
Gervads,	Roy (Montmagny)
Haggart (Lanark),	Sifton,
Haggart (Winnipeg),	Stratton, and Warburton.-45.
[Stage Direction]
No. 2. ON RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES.
Messieurs
Allen,	Macdonald,
Ames,	Macdonell,
Armstrong,	Maclean (York, S.),
Arthurs,	MacNutt,
Barker,	McAllister,
Barnard,	McCall,
Barr,	McCoig,
Beattie,	McColf,
Beauparlant,	McCraney,
Beland,	MoGiverin,
Bickerdike,	McKenzie,
Blain,	McLean (Huron),
Blondin,	McLean (Sunbury),
Boyce,	McMillan,
Boyer,	Maddin,
Bradbury,	Magrath,
Bristol,	Major,
Broder,	Marcile (Bagot),
Brown,	Marshall,
Burrell,	Martin (Montreal, St.
Campbell,	Mary's),
Carrier,	Martin (Regina),
Carvell,	Martin (Wellington),
Cash,	Mayrand,
Champagne,	Meighen,
Chew,	Meigs,
Chisholm	Michaud,
(Antigonish),	Middlebro,
Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Chisholm (Huron), Chisholm (Inverness), Clare,
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Conmee,
Cowan,
Crocket,
Crosby,
C rot hers,
Currie,
(Prince Edward), Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Delisle,
Demers,
Devlin,
Doherty,
Donnelly,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Ecrement,
Edwards,
Elson,
Emmerson,
Ethier,
Fielding,
Forget,
Fortier,
Foster,
Fowke,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gervais,
Girard,
Gladu,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Kent),
Gordon (Nipissing), Graham,
Guthrie,
Haggart (Lanark), Haggart (Winnipeg), Harris,
Harty,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hodgins,
Hughes,
Hunt,	[DOT]
Jameson,
Kidd,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lachance,
Lafortune,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lancaster,
Lanctot (Laprairie-Napierville), Lanctot (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Loggie,
Lortie,
Lovell,
Low,
Miller,
Molloy,
Monk,
Murphy,
Nantel,
Neely,
Nesbitt,
Northrup,
Oliver,
Osier,
Owen,
Papineau,
Paquet,
Pardee,
Parent,
Perley,
Pickup,
Porter,
Price,
Proulx,
Prowse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Grenville),
Reid (Restigouche), Rhodes,
Richards,
Rivet,
Roche,
Ross (Rimouski),
Roy (Dorchester),
Roy (Montmagny), Russell,
Rutan,
Savoie,
Schaffner,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sharpe (Ontario), Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo),
| Smith (Stormont), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Stratton,
Talbot,
Taylor (New Westminster),
Thoburn,
Thornton,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Wallace,
War burton,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria, Alta), Wilson (Laval), Worthington, and Wright.-199.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-five members.


No. 3. ON MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS.
Messieurs
Ames,
Arthurs,
Aylesworth,
Beland,
Black,
Blondin,
Boyce,
Boyer,
Bradbury,
Broder,
Brodeur,
Bureau,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Chisholm (Huron), Clarke (Essex), Conrnee,
Cowan,
Ciocket,
Crosby,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Daniel,
Devlin,
Donnelly,
Elson, \
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fowke,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Girard,
Gladu,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Kent), Guthrie,
Harris,
Harty,
Hunt,
Jameson,
King:,
Knowles,
And that the do consist
Lachance,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Lcitie,
Macdonald,
Macdonell,
Maclean (York, S.), McCoig,
McGiverin,
McKenzie,
McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Magrath,
Martin (Wellington), Meighen,
Meigs,
Middlebro,
Monk,
Murphy,
Nantel,
Owen,
Papineau,
Parent,
Proulx,
Piowse,	*
Robb,
Schaffner,
Sealey,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Ontario), Smith (Stormont), . Stewart,
Stratton,
Talbot,
Tobin To Imie,
Turcotte
(Quebec County), Turgeon,
Turriff,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria,
Alberta), and Worthington.-85.
committee
quorum of the said of ten members.
No. i.
ON STANDING ORDERS. Messieurs
Barr,
Black,
Brown,
Burrell, Champagne, Chisholm (Huron), Clare,
Fortier,
Goodeve, Henderson, Jameson,
Knowles,
Kyte,
Lake,
Lancaster, Lavergne,
Law,
LeBlanc,
Meigs,
Miller,
Molloy,
Papineau,
Price,
Reid (Restigouche), Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Mentmagny), Russell,
Rutan,
Seguin,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Smyth,
Staples,
Thoburn,
Thointon,
Todd,
Tolmie,
Low.
MacNutt,
MacCarthy,
McCoig,
McCraney,
McGiverin,
Maddin,
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall (Wellingl
Turcotte (Quebec County),
Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Lennox and Addington), and , Wright.-53.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of seven Members.
No. 5.
ON PRINTING. Messieurs
Allen,
Bickerdike,
Bristol,
Douglas,
Fowke,
Gervais,
Gordon (Nipissing), Henderson,
Hughes,
King,
Lavergne,
Maclean (York, S.), McColl,
McIntyre,
McLean (Huron),
Magrath,
Martin
(Montreal,St.Mary's), Nantel,
Pardee,
Rhodes,
Taylor (Leeds),
Taylor (New Westminster), Verville,
White (Victoria, Alberta), and Wilson (Lennox and Addington).-25.
No. 6.
ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS. Messieurs
Loggie, Macdonald, MacNutt, McAllister, McCoig,
McColl, McCraney, McKenzie, Maddin,
Martin (Regina), Meighen, 'Michaud,
Allen,
Ames,
Barker,
Barnard,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Blain,
Blondin,
Boyce,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew.,	_
Chisholm (Antigonish), Middlebro,
Chisholm (Inverness), Clarke (Essex), Congdon,
Cowan,
Crocket,
Crosby,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Demers,
Doherty,
Ecrement,
Fielding,
Foster,
Fowke,
Geoffrion,
German,
Gervais,
Goodeve,
Hughes,
Haggart (Lanark), Kyte,
Lake,
Lancaster,
Lanct6t (Richelieu), Lapointe,
Law,
Lennox,
Molloy,
Neely,
Nesbitt,
Northrup,
Pardee,
Parent,
Pickup,
Porter,
Proulx,
Provvse,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Grenville), Reid (Restigouche), Rhodes,
Richards,
Roche,
Savoie,
Schell,
Sharpe (Ontario), Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo), Stanfield,
Taylor (Leeds), Tobin,
Wallace, Warburton, and
W orthington.-82.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twenty-one members.

No. 7.
ON BANKING AND COMMERCE. Messieurs
Allen,
Ames,
Arthurs,
Aylesworth,
Barker,
Barnard,
Beattie,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Bickerdike,
Blaiu,
Borden (Sir
Frederick),
Borden (Halifax), Boyce,
Bradbury
Bristol,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Chew,
Clark (Red Deer), Conmee,
Cowan,
Crothers,
Currie (Simcoe), Delisle,
Demers,
Doherty,
Douglas,
Dubeau,
Ecrement,
Edwards,
Emmerson,
Fielding,
Fisher,
Forget,
Fortier,
Foster,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gervais,
Gladu,
Goodeve,
Gordon (Kent), Gordon (Nipissing), Guthrie,
Haggart (Winnipeg), Harris,
Harty,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hughes,
Jameson,
Knowles,
Lachance,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lanctot
(Laprairie-Napierville),
Lanctot,
(Richelieu),
Lavergne,
Law,
Lovell,
Low,
Macdonald,
Macdonell,
Maclean (York, S.), McCall, , McCarthy, McCraney, McGiverin, McIntyre,
McLean (Huron), McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Magrath,
Marshall,
Martin (Regina), Mayra nd,
Meighen,
Michaud,
Miller,
Monk,
Nesbitt,
Osier,
Owen,
Paquet,
Pardee,
Papineau,
Paterson,
Perley,
Pickup,
Porter,
Price,
Pugsley,
Rankin,
Reid (Grenville), Reid (Restigouche), Richards,
Rivet,
Robb,
Roche,
Ross (Rimouski), Roy (Dorchester), Russell,
Savoie,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sharpe (Lisgar), Sifton,
Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stewart,
Stratton,
Talbot,
Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Thoburn,
Tobin,
Todd,
Turcotte (Nicolet),
Wallace,
Warburton,
White (Victoria, Alberta),
Wilson (Laval),


Wilfrid Laurier: Lemieux,	Wilson (Lennox and
Loggie,	Addington), and
Lortie,	Worthington.-133.
And that the Quorum of the said Committee do consist of Twenty-one Members.
No. 8.
AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION. Messieurs
Allen,
Armstrong,
Arthurs,
Barr,
Beauparlant,
Beland,
Black,
Blain,
Blondin,
Boyer,
Braunury,
Broder,
Brown,
Burrell,
Campbell,
Carrier,
Carvell,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chew,
Chisholm
(Antigonish), Chisholm (Huron), Chisholm (Inverness), Clare,
Clark (Red Deer), Conmee,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Currie (Simcoe), Delisle,
Devlin,
Donnelly,
Douglas,
Ecrement,
Edwards,
Elson,
Ethier,
Fisher,
Fraser,
Gauvreau,
Girard,
Gordon (Kent), Gordon (Nipissing), Harris,
Henderson,
Herron,
Hodgins,
Hughes,
Hunt,
Jameson,
Kidd,
King,
Lafortune,
Lake,
Lalor,
Lanctot (Laprairie-
Napierville),
Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Lennox,
Lewis,
Lortie,
Lovell,
Low,
McCall,
McCarthy,
McCoig,
McColl,
McIntyre,
McLean (Huron), McMillan,
M addin,
Magrath,
Major,
Marcile (Bagot), Marshall,
Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's),
Martin (Wellington), Maynand,
Meighen,
Meigs,
Middlebro,
Miller,
Molloy,
Monk,
Nantel,
Neely,
Oliver,
Owen,
Paquet,
Parent,
Pickup,
Proulx,
Rankin,
Richards,
Robb,
Roche,
Ross (Rimouski), Rutan,
Savoie,
Schaffner,
Schell,
Sealey,
Seguin,
Sexsmith,
Sharpe (Lisgar) Sharpe (Ontario), Sinclair,
Smith (Middlesex), Smith (Nanaimo), Smith (Stormont), Smyth,
Sproule,
Stanfield,
Staples,
Stewart,
Talbot,
Thornton,
Tobin,
Todd,
Tolmie, _
Turcotte (Nicolet), Turgeon,
Turriff,
Verville,
Wallace,
White (Renfrew), Wilson (Laval),

Macdonald,	Wilson (Lennox and
MacNntt,	Addington), and
McAllister,	Wright.-131.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of twelve members.

No. 9. ON MARINE AND FISHERIES.
Clark (Red Deer), Clarke (Essex), Ethier,
Gervais,
Guthrie,
Hodgins,
McCarthy,
McLean (Huron), Schaffner,
Taylor (Leeds), and Taylor (New Westminster).-15.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of five members.
Messieurs
Bickerdike,
Bradbury,
Brodeur,
Chisholm (Inverness) Clarke (Essex), Crosby,
Currie (Simcoe), Daniel,
Fraser,
Gervais,
Jameson,
Kyte,
Loggie,
Macdonald,
McKenzie,
Middlebro,
. Monk,
Nantel,
Pardee,
Sinclair,
Smith (Nanaimo), Taylor (New Westminster), Tcdd,
Turgeon, and Warburton.-25.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
No. 10.
ON MINES AND MINERALS. Messieurs
Blondin,
Burrell,
Chisholm
(Antigonish),
Congdon,
Conmee,
Devlin,
I'ouglas,
Good eve,	_
Gordon (Nipissing), Herron,
Lanctot (Richelieu)
Lortie,
Ma cdonald, McCarthy,
McCoig,
McMillan,
Maddin,
Prcwse,
Rhodes,
Smith (Nanaimo), Smyth,
Stratton,
Tempieman, and
Lcggie,	Tu riff.-25.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.

No. 13. ON THE LIBRARY.
Messieurs
Aylesworth,	Foster,
Beland,	Laurier (Sir	Wilfrid),
Borden (Halifax),	Lemieux,
Borden (Sir Fred'k), Lewis,
Bristol,	Monk,
Brodeur,	Pardee,
Daniel,	Pugsley, and
Doherty,	Smith (Nanaimo).-16.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the report was adopted.



PRINTING OF PARLIAMENT.

Wilfrid Laurier: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this House will unite with them in the formation of a Joint Committee of both Houses on the subject of the printing of parliament, and that the members of the Select Standing Committee on Printing, namely, Messrs. Allen, Bickerdike, Bristol, Douglas, Fowke, Gervais, Gordon (Nipissing), Henderson, Hughes, King, Lav-ergne, Maclean (South York), McColl, McIntyre, McLean (Huron), Magrath, Martin (Montreal, St. Mary's), Nantel, Pardee, Rhodes, Taylor (Leeds), Taylor (New Westminster), Verville, White (Victoria, Alta.), and Wilson (Lennox and Addington), will act as members, on the part of this House, on the said Joint Committee on the Printing of Parliament.
No. 11.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Messieurs
Arthurs,
Beland,
Boyce,
Campbell,
Carvell,
Chew,
Currie
(Prince Edward), Edwards,
Fisher,
Fowke,
Haggart (Lanark), MacNutt,
McLean (Sunbury),
Magrath,
Molloy,
Monk,
Perley,
Pickup,
Price,
Richards,
Savoie,
Sifton,
Tobin,
White (Renfrew), White (Victoria, Alberta), and Wilson (Laval).-26.
And that the quorum of the said committee do consist of ten members.
No. 12.
OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES. Messieurs
Black,	Hughes,
Blondin,	Knowles,

Wilfrid Laurier: That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that this House has appointed Messrs. Aylesworth, Beland, Borden (Halifax), Sir Frederick Borden, Bristol, Brodeur, Daniel, Doherty, Foster, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Lemieux, Lewis, Monk, Pardee, Pugsley, and Smith (Nanaimo), a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the Library of parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both Houses on the Library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr.  E. N.@: LEWIS (West Huron) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 10) respecting load lines on ships.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. LEWIS.: The Bill which I now wish to present to the House has for its purpose the cessation of those regrettable, fatal and avoidable accidents which happen to ships on the coastal waters of Canada and on the Great Lakes. During the past few years there have occurred many such. I instance the wrecks of the Asia, Jones, Bannockburn and others on the Great Lakes which have occasioned great loss of life and property, caused principally by overloading. This Bill is founded on the English Plimsoll Act and also upon a clause with respect to the loading of ships engaged in the maritime coasting trade of Canada, with which I am not so familiar as with the conditions on the Great Lakes, but this feature of the Bill is founded on a Bill presented to the House some sessions ago by Mr. Lawrence, of Nova Scotia. There was some exception taken to a clause in a similar Bill by the large transportation companies, which provided that lists of passengers and crews should be placed in the hands of customs officer, harbour master or wharfinger, before a vessel left port after the 15th day of September and before the 15th day of April in each year, the period to which this Bill only applies. I have changed that clause by expunging from it the provision with reference to ferry steamers, river steamers and excursion steamers. Otherwise it follows upon the lines of the English Plimsoll Act. Clause eight seeks to prevent too much loading on deck in the fall and winter.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 11) respecting wireless telegraphy on ships.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Edward Norman Lewis: This Bill is simply following out legislation brought down in the mother of parliaments and also in the parliament of the large country to the south of us in reference to wireless telegraphy on ships. There is no lion, gentleman in this House who, after' having read of that accident to the steamship 'Britannia' last year, and of the great loss of life which was prevented by the use of wireless telegraphy, will not be disposed to vote for this Bill. Since last year wireless telegraphy has been introduced on many lake vessels by the Lake Trust and other vessel owners.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.
Edward Norman Lewis: 



QUESTIONS.


Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	How many employees of the Intercolonial have been dismissed since the appointment of the commissioners charged with the administration of the affairs of this railway? _
2.	How many employees of the Intercolonial have been dismissed at Montreal and Camp-bellton since the establishment of the commission?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:: 1.	There have been 503 employees of the Intercolonial railway dropped since the appointment of the Managing Board.
There have been three employees dismissed at Montreal and thirteen; at Camp-bellton since the establishment of the Managing Board.


Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	How many employees of the Intercolonial railway have been superannuated since the appointment of the Government Railways Managing Board at each of the following places: Truro, Halifax and Stellarton?
2.	How many employees of the Intercolonial railway heve been dismissed since the appointment of the Government Railways Managing Board at each of the following places: Truro, Halifax and Stellarton?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Since the appointment of the Government Railways Managing Board there have been six (6) employees of the Intercolonial railway placed on the Provident Fund at Truro, nineteen (19) at Halifax, and three (3) at Stellarton.
2.	Since the appointment of the Government Railways Managing Board, there have been thirty-eight (38) employees of the Intercolonial railway dismissed at Truro ; one hundred and forty-seven (147) at Halifax; and fifteen (15) at Stellarton.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY.
Mr. JAMESON :: 1.	How much money has been expended to-date by the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, exclusive of sums paid to contractors having construction of road bed under contract?
2.	How many employees of the commission are thei'e at present?
3.	Wliat do their salaries aggregate?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	$18,118,133.58.
2.	$1,434.
3.	$108,133.74 per month.


Mr. MONK:: 1.	At wliat date wras the contract entered into or signed for the construction of the section of the National Transcontinental railway from Winnipeg to Superior Junction?
2.	What was the amount of the said contract ?

3.	Wlio was tlie contractor, what was the time fixed for the completion of the works?
4.	Is the construction finished, and is the line ready for operation? If not, when will the said section be ready for use?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	May 15, 1906.
2.	The estimated amount was $13,010,398.92.
3.	John D. McArthur, of Winnipeg. Time for completion Sept. 1, 1907.
4.	All work is not finished so as to discharge contractor; but track is laid and trains are being run. Contractor expects to have the road completed and hand it over by next spring.


Mr. HENDERSON:: 1.	Has the western section of the National Transcontinental railway, extending from Winnipeg to Superior Junction, been opened for traffic?
2.	If so, when was said western section so opened for traffic?
3.	How many bushels of wheat have there been carried over said section up to the 10th November, 1909?
4.	How many car loads of cattle have been carried over said section during said time?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	All work is not finished so as to discharge contractor, but track is laid and trains are being run.
2.	Trains went over said line about 6th day of November, instant.
3.	Ten carloads.
4.	No information.


Mr. MONK :: 1.	What are the dates of the different contracts for construction of the National Transcontinental railway from Superior Junction to Quebec?
2.	What is the time fixed in said contracts for the termination of the works, and what is the price or consideration to be paid the contractor in each case?
3.	What is the mileage covered by each, contract and is the contractor in each case within his time limit for the execution of the part contracted for?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 
OWEN SOUND PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. MIDDLEBRO:: 1.	What is the total cost of the Owen Sound public building site, furniture, fixtures, and all other cost to date?
2.	What amount will still be required to
complete same?
3.	What amount thereof is for extras, and what are the particulars of such extras?
4.	What amount has been expended and will yet he required to he expended in respect of fittings and furniture?
5.	Prom whom were such fittings and furniture purchased, were tenders asked therefor, and was the lowest tender accepted in each case ?
6.	Have any appointments of mail carriers for street delivery in Owen Sound or other persons been made in consequence of proposed street delivery in Owen Sound? If not, why not? If so, what are the names of such and salary r
7.	When will the post office be removed to said public building, and wben will street delivery commence?
8.	What is the age limit for entry to service as mail carriers on street delivery?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	$93,255.78.
2.	About $9,000.
3.	Additional story	$8,950
Electric wiring	 275
Addition to fittings	 458
Sink	,	 38
Total	$9,721
4.	Fittings, paid	$2,702
Furniture, paid	
Total	$2,702
Fittings, unpaid	$2,855
Furniture, unpaid	 876
Total	$3,731

5.	The fittings were advertised for, and the lowest tender, that of J. T. Schell, accepted. The furniture ordered from R. Breckenridge-Horton, departmental store, at a fixed price for each article ; shades from Goldblatt; boxes, sorting cases and bag rack, from Office Specialty Company; brass grills and plates from Kubenstein Brothers at prices agreed upon.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Postmaster general!:
6.	Free delivery of letters can only be established in places where the houses have been properly numbered and the streets labelled at intersecting points, and as these requirements have not yet been completed at Owen Sound, the department has not been in a position to put the service in operation. The municipal authorities have been asked to notify the department as soon as the necessary arrangements in connection with the numbering of the houses and labelling of the streets are completed.
7.	As soon as the building is ready for occupation and taken over from the contractors by the Public Works Department.
8.	Thirty years.


EXPORT LICENSES.
Mr. LANCASTER :: 1.	Have any licenses been issued by this government l'or export of any power, or fluid, or gas, under the statute, chapter 16 of the statutes of 1906-7, since those mentioned by the Minister of Inland Revenue in answer to question on page 360 of the House of Commons Debates on 9th December, 1907?
2.	If so, what are the respective dates, amounts or quantities, and terms of such licenses, and the kinds of power or fluid for export, and from what places, and the names of the licensees?


Hon. WM. TEMPLEMAN :: 1.	Yes. Old licenses have been renewed. No new licenses have been issued since answer above referred to.
2.	On the 1st of April, 1909, a license was granted to ' The Maine and New Brunswick Electrical Power Co,, Ltd.,' Aroostook Falls, N.B., to export during current fiscal year, electrical energy not to exceed one thousand (1,000) kilowatt years.
On the 1st of April, 1909, a license was granted to 1 The Ontario Power Company of Niagara, Falls, Ont., ' to export, during the current fiscal year, electrical energy not to [DOT]exceed forty-five thousand (45,000) kilowatt years.
On the 1st of April, 1909, a license was granted to ' The Canadian Niagara Power Company,' Niagara Falls, Ont., to export during the current fiscal year, electrical energy not to exceed thirty-nine thousand one hundred and sixty-five (39,165) kilowatt years.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: On the 13th April, 1909, a license was granted to ' The Electrical Development Co. of Ontario, Ltd.' Niagara Fallsr, Ont., to export, during current fiscal year, electrical energy not to exceed thirty-four thousand three hundred and sixteen (34,316) kilowatt years.
All these licenses are for a period ending on the 31st March, 1910. The quantities given in the licenses do not amount to one-third of the total possible output of the licensees respectively.


INDUSTRIAL CONDITIONS.
Mr. VERVILLE :: 1.	What has been the increase in wages for mechanics, year by year, from May, 1900, to May, 1909, in different industries?
2.	What was the percentage year by year for the same period?
3.	What has been the average number of days worked yearly in different industries for the same period?
4.	What has been the increase in production in percentage for the same period?
5.	What has been the difference in the cost of living year by year, for the same period?
6.	What has been the increase in number of mechanics in Canada yearly for the same period ?


Hon. MACKENZIE KING :: 1.	The Department of Labour has in course of preparation a special report on wages changes and the cost of living in Canada during the past decade. Until this report and the statistical tables and diagrams which will accompany it, are completed, it will not be possible to give the information in the detail requested.
2.	Answered by the answer to No. 1.
3.	The Dominion census having been taken periodically and not annually, it is not possible to give returns showing annual averages or percentages for the period mentioned.
4.	Answered by the answer to No. 3.
5. Answered by the answer to No. 1.
6. Answered by the answer to No. 3.



NEW BRUNSWICK COAL AND RAILWAY COMPANY ACCOUNTS.

Mr. FOSTER:: What has been done up to date to forward the process in the Court of Equity of the province of New Brunswick begun by the Minister of Public Works, as declared in his speech of May 5, 1909, in the House of Commons, as follows: ' I yesterday instructed my solicitors, the legislature being prorogued only a few day ago, to issue a summons in the Supreme Court in Equity of the province of New Brunswick, making the New Brunswick Coal and Railway Company, and the other parties defendants, so as to bring all parties before the court for the purpose of having an accounting as to the receipts and expenditures made by that company and for the purpose of having a decree made as to the state of its accounts? '


Wilfrid Laurier: I regret that I am unable to see that this inquiry has any relation to the public affairs of the Dominion. The lawsuits of members of parliament can hardly be considered proper subjects for question in this House.



TEMPORARY LOANS SINCE JUNE 1, 1909.

George Eulas Foster: What temporary loans hare been made since June 1, 1909, from what banks and at what rate of interest?


Hon. W. S. FIELDING.: None.



IMPORTATIONS OF INCUBATORS.

Mr. WHITE:: What was the total number of incubators and brooders, respectively, imported into Canada from the United States during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1909, and what was the total cost of each?


Hon. WM. PATERSON:: This information is not immediately available, but if the question is allowed to stand as a notice of motion I shall expedite it as far as possible.


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



LETTER RATE, BARRIE AND ALLAN-DALE.

Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Has the Postmaster General received a resolution of the municipal council of the town of Barrie, urging upon the Department of Justice of providing that letters posted in Allandale, the 6th ward of the town of Barrie, and delivered at the principal post office in the town, and vice versa, will be transported for one cent?
2.	W hat conclusion has the minister come to, or is the matter under consideration?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for the Postmaster General) :: 1.	Yes.
2.	The drop letter rate of postage, one cent per ounce, is limited by statute to letters which are not transmitted through the mails, but simply posted at and delivered through the same post office, and as Allandale and Barrie are two separate post offices the rate in question does not apply to letters passing between them. The municipal authorities at Barrie have been advised of the statutory requirements in regard to the application of the drop letter rate.



TRENT VALLEY CANAL SURVEY.

Mr. LENNOX:: In connection with the Trent Valley Waterways system has the report of the survey between Kempenfeldt bay and the Georgian bay been completed and filed in the department?


George Perry Graham: Yes, a report has been received on the estimated cost of canalizing one of the proposed western outlets of the Trent canal,-that is from Kempenfeldt bay, Lake Simcoe, to and via the Nottawa-saga river to (Nottawasaga bay) Georgian Bay, and has been filed in the department.



DEVIL'S ELBOW-BRADFORD CHANNEL.

Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	Has the government decided to construct a channel from Devil's Elbow, on the Holland river, to a point in the neighbourhood of Bradford Railway station, as petitioned for, or not to construct it?
2.	Has the government taken this matter into its serious consideration? If so, with what result?
3.	Has the government obtained a report on this proposed work, or any estimate of its cost? If so, what is the estimated cost?
4.	Will the minister lay the papers upon the
table of the House?	[DOT]


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No decision has yet been reached by the department.
2,	3 and 4. Answered by No. 1.



TEMPORARY POST OFFICES FOR TOURISTS.

Mr. S. SHARPE:: 1.	How many temporary post offices for the benefit of tourists were established in Canada during season of 1909?
2.	What was the cost of each office in respect to salary of postmaster and carrying of the mails, respectively?
3.	What was the revenue from each office?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER (for Postmaster
General):
1, 2 and 3.-
Name of Office.	Service.	Revenue.	Salary.Cedar Croft	Daily, no cost.	830.50.	$25.00.Kawartha Park...	Daily, cost $50.00.	$58.00.	$29 00.Midlothian Wharf	Tri-weekly, no cost.	$19.25.	$25.00.Ojibway Island...	Tri-weekly, no cost.	$61.00.	$31.00.Rigaud Sur le Lac.	Daily, $20fortwo months.	$5.00 for two mos.	$12.00.



ROCKY MOUNTAINS FOREST RESERVE.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called.
George Eulas Foster: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I beg to call the attention of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Fisher) to the report of the Select Standing Committee on Forests, Waterways and Water-powers. One of the recommend ations of that! committee is as follows:

In view of these facts, therefore, your committee begs to recommend that immediate action be taken to enlarge the boundaries of the National Parks or Forest reserves and that a single continuous forest reserve be created from the International boundary line to the northern watershed of the Peace river, embracing so far as possible the land upon the east slope of the mountains as shown in the accompanying tracing which has been prepared by the Forestry Branch of the Department of the Interior.
I find that no tracing has been included in the report and consequently we seem not to have the plan which was in the minds of the committee.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: The tracing in question is a production of the Department of the Interior which was submitted to this committee last session. I shall inquire from the clerk of the committee. Perhaps it was not kept on file but I will see that it is placed within reach of the members of the House.



MOTIONS AGREED TO WITHOUT DISCUSSION.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of all applications, petitions, letters, telegrams, documents, plans, specifications and correspondence with reference to, and in any way concerning the application for subsidy for the building of a dry-dock and ship-building yard by certain persons, or company, at or in the vicinity of the town of Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario.-Mr. Boyce.
For a copy of all correspondence and papers respecting the application by the United States Immigration Service to the Minister of the Interior, for the deportation of one Mrs. Goby, an alleged immigrant to the United States of America from Canada, entering at the port_ of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, together with a copy of all orders, decisions, reports and returns regarding any action taken thereupon by the Department of the Interior. -Mr. Boyce.
For a copy of all applications, petitions, letters, telegrams, documents, plans, specifications and correspondence with reference to and in any way concerning the application for subsidy for the building of a dry-dock and ship-building yard by certain persons, or company, at or in the vicinity of the town of Port Arthur, Ontario.-Mr. Boyce.
For a return giving the names and addresses of all immigration agents at the present time employed by the government in Great Britain, the Continent of Europe, and the United States on salary, the amount of salary paid to each, the amount of other perquisites paid to each, if any; the names and addresses of all immigration agents at the present time employed by the government in the above countries on commission, the amount of such commission, the rate of commission per immigrant, the amount of other perquisites paid to each:	the names and addresses of all
special immigration agents in the above countries appointed during the fiscal years 1908-9 and up to 1st November, 1909, the date of the appointment of each, the address of each at the time of his appointment, the amount of salary, commission, or other perquisites paid
George Eulas Foster: to each, and the length of time served by each in respect of such appointment.-Mr. U. Wilson.
For a return showing the number of fatal accidents resulting from the use of explosives in the construction of railways and other public works in Canada, reported to either the Department of Railways and Canals, the Department of Public Works, or the National Transcontinental Railway Commissioners, within the past three years; the nature of investigation, if held, after each accident; and what precautions have been taken to prevent or minimize the number of accidents from the use of explosives on construction work in Canada under control of government officials.-Mr. Robb.
For a copy of all orders in council, correspondence, documents and papers of every description relating to the proposed sale or disposal of any part of the Peigan Indian reserve in the province of Alberta, including any advertisement of such sale and record of the proceedings, whether by vote or otherwise, under which any of the Indians on said reserve purported to give their consent thereto. Also a return showing the actual number of Indians on said reserve entitled to vote or elect in respect of such proposed sale, and all other information in the possession of the department or its officials relating to or in any way referring to the proceedings in connection with such proposed sale.-Mr. Herron.



THE FRENCH TREATY .

Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution;
That it is expedient to approve of the Supplementary Convention respecting the commercial relations between Canada and France, entered into at Paris on the 23rd day of January, 1909, by plenipotentiaries appointed by His Majesty and by the President of the French Republic, a copy of which was on the eighth day of March, 1909, transmitted to the House of Commons by His Excellency the Governor General.
He said:	With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that it would probably be more convenient for the House to discuss this subject, should discussion be found necessary, when the Bill is printed. We might pass the resolution through committee as the foundation for the Bill that is to be introduced, but not proceed further with the matter until the Bill has been distributed; in the meantime any information on the subject that is to be given will be brought down.


Mr. E. A. LANCASTER (Lincoln and Niagara).: I wish to go on record as not being bound by the resolution even if it is passed, because I am against the resolution.


Mr. F. D. MONK (Jacques Cartier).: May I ask if the government has any communication-


William Stevens Fielding: I would suggest that it would be better to go into committee, and I can better answer questions there.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: In view of what has been said regarding the effect of this treaty on our relations with the United States in connection with the new tariff, I would ask whether the government has endeavoured to ascertain in any way what interpretation the American authorities will put upon this treaty as affecting our position under that tariff. Has any communication taken place between this government and that of the United States on that point?


William Stevens Fielding: There has been no such communication. Our view, as stated the other day, is that our proper course is to await the determination of events. I hardly think it seemly that we should approach the government of the United States in the matter. I have reason to believe, however-this comes to me unofficially-that the United States government would not be in a position to give us information on the point at present. I have reason to believe that the American tariff commission which will advise the president has not yet come to a determination on the subject. However, as I said, we have not had any official communication with them on the matter.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: Is the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) aware whether any decision come to by the president of the United States under the powers conferred upon him in this matter is subject to revision by the Supreme Court of the United States?


William Stevens Fielding: My impression is that it is not, but I would not answer definitely. It is not a point to which I have given particular attention.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I do not wish to retard the report of the committee, but I think the point -of my question still remains. I do not see anything particularly 'unseemly' in our inquiring of a friendly nation in what way they would interpret the favour we are giving to the French government under this treaty. Surely international relations admit of such a course between peoples at peace. We are granting a special favour to the French nation on certain specified articles, and a great many people express a doubt whether the result of that very moderate favour to the French nation will not be to affect very considerably our commercial relations with the United States through our being in consequence placed under the highest United States tariff. That is the difficulty, as I understand it. Surely, before we ratify a treaty some tentative effort might be made to find out how that would be interpreted.


William Stevens Fielding: I think it is hardly correct to say that we are granting a favour to the French nation. If it be a favour, it is for a favour in return. I think our American neighbours, on principle, do not interpret that as discrimination. Of course, I have no right to speak on their behalf. I think the statement I have made that, even if we had sought information of that kind from the United States government, they are not in a position to give it, is correct, and I base my statement on information gained through the press and elsewhere. The United States authorities have not yet determined their action. I do not think we should assume that that action will be adverse to us; on the contrary, we should assume that it is the right of Canada to regulate its own commercial affairs. We have no reason to suppose that the American government will approach the matter in an unfriendly spirit; quite the contrary; I think we have every reason to believe that it will be the desire of that government to interpret the tariff favourably toward Canada. However, the matter may be more fully discussed at a later stage and, in the meantime, I think the House might well reserve its judgment.


George Eulas Foster: I have no objection to the resolution passing, on the understanding that it does not bind the House, certainly this side of the House, as to the action to be taken when the Bill comes before us. But I would like to know whether the Finance Minister proposes to press his Bill, to be based on this resolution, to a conclusion before any information is got as to what will be the course of the United States tariff with reference to Canada in this matter. I quite agree with the Minister of Finance that he cannot get that information now. If he were to appeal for it a dozen times, I do not think he could get it. That comes in a certain course, as I explained the other day. A commission of experts has been appointed, and that commission will take up the tariff legislation of different countries, inquiring into the facts, and into the facts alone. It will report the facts to the President, who cannot act until that report is before him. This report of the commission, as I understand it, will not be political in any way, it will not take into account the matter of policy but simply the facts of the case. If the commission report, with reference to a given country, that it gives advantages discriminating against the United States, it will be. for the President to decide as to his course in the matter. As I pointed out the other day, I think it is abundantly clear that the decision of the President will not be a personal decision

in any way; it will not be a decision by the President that, looking at it from his own standpoint, and as far as he is concerned he will apply or will not apply the surtax to the country in question. It seems to me that his is the duty of making a decision according to the facts presented, just as a judge or jury would give decision on whatever question came before them. Therefore, if the Minister of Finance determines to press this to a conclusion before we know what will be the attitude of the tariff commission or the President in this case, I think he will be taking a very grave step, and that he ought to wait more definite information before we are asked to take that final step. The present treaty with France is a very contracted one. It gives concessions upon a very small number of articles, but the treaty which has been arranged by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Marine is much more extended and has an area and scope much wider, as applied to the United States in this matter, than the old treaty. While the President of the United States or the tariff commission might not think that the old treaty had any particular discrimination against the United States, they might come to a very different opinion with reference to the present treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: There is no disposition on the part of the government to press this matter unduly, and we shall be willing to grant a delay in the procedure at the request of any hon. gentleman on either side who may desire better opportunity of studying the question. But if I understand my hon. friend rightly he wants us to wait until next April in order to find out what the United States will do. I do not think we ought to wait on the action of the United States. I think we have clearly made it understood in this parliament that Canada, while paying great deference to her great neighbour, is no longer willing to be dependent on the action of the United States in tariff matters. The sentiment of our people is that we; shall quietly and deliberately work out our own commercial policy. If that policy be acceptable to our powerful neighbour, we are all the more pleased; but if it should not, much as we might regret the fact, I do not see why that would justify our taking: a different policy. I do not see why we should depart from any line of action which we deemed advantageous in our own interests because that might not be agreeable to the great republic. We must play our own part fairly, open and above board, and after having entered into negotiations with the French government, after having persuaded them to accept this treaty, after having become in honour bound to (he French government to present it to the House, we do not think it w-ould be proper to wait until the 1st of April next in order Mr. FOSTER.
to find out whether it will be acceptable to our neighbours to the south.


Haughton Lennox: The sentiment which the Minister of Finance has. just expressed has evoked very hearty applause from his followers, but this is not a< matter for sentiment or hysterics. It is one of cool business. The proposition may or may not be good, so far as the French treaty is concerned, but that is no reason why we should go it blind on this occasion. When the French treaty was before this House for consideration previously, we had not the information as to the action of the United States which we now have. We have now, in their statutes a clear cut expression of the policy of the United States. It is not impossible for this government, long before April next, to ascertain what must be the action of the United States regarding the tariff now under consideration. The language of the American statute is pretty clear. Unless the President of the United States, after taking into consideration the fiscal measures of any other country, comes to the conclusion that the United States is receiving in every respect reciprocal fair treatment, the 25 'per cent additional duty is automatically imposed. If it be rather unfortunate, if, by reason of the fact that, as the Minister of Finance has suggested, this government ^ urged upon France the adoption of this treaty although it entails great sacrifices upon this country, we are to press this matter through without looking to the results. Putting sentiment aside and looking at this as a matter ot business, whatever our representatives may have done twelve months ago, it is our duty now, before finally concluding this treaty with France, to ascertain what will be the effect of its going into operation. I am not saying that I am opposed to it, but I say that we must look at it as a business proposition and ascertain whether, as regards trade with other countries, it will be to our commercial benefit. If this House is of the opinion notwithstanding the efforts of the two gentlemen who went to France, notwithstanding what assurances they gave or what persuasion they used, that the adoption of the treaty would not be commercially beneficial to us, we should not ratify it. I think that the government should, in the first place, submit to the Minister of Justice the question as to the reasonable construction of the American statute, whether that might involve the addition of 25 per cent duty on imports from Canada to the United States, should this French treaty go through. In such an event the exports from Canada to the United States wmuld be exceedingly limited.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
William Stevens Fielding: It is quite true that there has been some blundering in connection with the French treaty, but the blunder, I regret to say, has been very largely on the part of the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk). The hon. gentleman led up an attack upon the treaty, alleging that it was something which gave France an undue advantage. He discovered his blunder.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I did not say that to-day. I said we granted favours.


William Stevens Fielding: But I am talking of the discussion of this French treaty some time ago when it was brought before parliament. The hon. gentleman, in a variety of ways, has endeavoured to make this House believe that the treaty was one in which the interest of Canada was sacrificed, and undue favour shown to France.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I beg my hon. friend's pardon, he is quite mistaken.


William Stevens Fielding: That was the ground of his repeated hostility to the treaty. If he did not mean that, what did he mean ?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I never was hostile to the treaty. I will not allow my hon. friend to make mistakes of that kind.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. gentleman says he is not hostile. One is reminded of the old lines;
It is all very well to dissemble your love,
But why did you kick me down stairs?
If the hon. gentleman was in favour of the French treaty he took a queer way of showing it to this House. Again and again my hon. friend, by question, by suggestion, gave the House to understand that it was a treaty in^ which the interests of Canada were sacrificed. Does he not virtually say that to-day?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I deny that absolutely.


William Stevens Fielding: Then the hon. gentleman discovered that this treaty, which was so favourable to France and so unfair to Canada, after it had been ratified by the Canadian parliament, was held up for months and was not ratified and approved by the French legislative bodies because they thought is was too favourable to Canada; and then my hon. friend discovered his blunder. He regarded this treaty as too favourable to France, and we thought it was a fair treaty. And again and again, in the legislative chambers-[DOT]


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. I do not think my hon. friend has a right to make that statement when I deny it.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend will take the trouble to-morrow to read what he did say in the ' Hansard,' perhaps he

will find that he went further than he imagined. For the present I may say, and repeat, that the hon. gentleman again and again, in this House, by question, by suggestion, by a variety of ways, impeded-


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Order.


William Stevens Fielding: What is the matter? Does the hon. gentleman say that he did not oppose the treaty?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Never.


William Stevens Fielding: Never questioned it?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: My hon. friend should take my denial.


William Stevens Fielding: I accept my hon. friend's statement. I advise him to read the ' Han sard,' that is the best advice I can give him.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The hon. gentleman will not read the ' Hansard ' to that effect.


William Stevens Fielding: I did not bring it here to-day because I did not imagine that my hon. friend would for a moment doubt the accuracy of what I have said. However, let that pass. Then my hon. friend discovered his blunder a little later. After the course he had pursued in relation to this treaty, when it came to be ratified, if I am not mistaken, he did not vote against it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Voted for it, and supported it also.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, that is a kind of support in regard to which I would say: save us from our friends. Then there is another point. My hon. friend said trouble arose in connection with this treaty because it was discovered that Switzerland was a favoured-treaty-country, and that that fact had not been ascertained. My hon. friend said that it was a blunder. Well, if it was a blunder it was a blunder that he had better lay at the door of the hon. member for North Toronto; because when the first French treaty was brought down in this parliament the question as to the countries that were entitled to the favoured-nation treatment was brought up, and a list of countries under the favoured-nation-treaty was given, and Switzerland was not one of them. So my hon. friend will see that there was doubt as to what was the application of this treaty to Switzerland. That doubt was entertained not only by the Liberal government but entertained by the government of the Conservative party. Now I am glad to be able to say that there is no party interest in this matter. My hon. friend suggests that there is in some way, he suggests some party feeling, some excitement. I am glad to be able to tell him that on behalf of the Conservative party the true note in this matter has been spoken by a distinguished member of that party in another place, a gentleman whose Mr. FIELDING.
name it is not necessary to mention, and speaking in a place which I must not mention. He said :
lie called attention to the reports that the Franco-Canadian treaty was likely to result in the United States maximum tariff being imposed against this country. The evident spirit behind the American tariff was one which could not be admired. It was designed among other things to prevent an improvement of the trade relations between Canada and the mother country, or any other country. He observed that Canada had developed her trade in the face of hostile American legislation, and he hoped that the Canadian government would not humiliate the Dominion by approaching the United States to ask the benefit of the minimum tariff.
I think that is a truer national note than has come from the hon. member for J-ac-ques Cartier.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: I think that the members of this House on both sides are under a deep debt of gratitude to the Minister of Finance for the clear, explicit and unmistakably frank expression he gave this House as to the ground on which the government intend to proceed with regard to this French treaty. We have had many other measures brought down by the government on which the members on this side of the House were perfectly satisfied that the principle on which the government was determined to proceed was that unhappy principle which the Minister of Finance so frankly avowed a few moments ago to-day. For the first time in the history of this House, a minister of the Crown has stood before parliament, speaking of a matter of tremendous importance to this country, a matter that means an immense deal for the weal or for the woe of thousands and thousands of business men of this country, and the Minister of Finance has frankly said that the government did not propose to be influenced in the slightest by such considerations as the weal or woe of the people of Canada, but that they proposed to do exactly as they saw fit, regardless of all considerations of Canadian interests. It was rather singular, too, that the Minister spoke, not hastily, not without a complete understanding, not without a precedent to guide him in the right path, for within a moment or two after he had so spoken, speaking of this and the other French treaty, referring to the manner in which another, and perhaps I may say, a wiser government have acted, he frankly admitted that the treaty had been held up for many a long day. Why? Because, at the other end of the line, the other contracting party suspected that the treaty was too favourable to Canada and therefore was not sufficiently favourable to France. One would "have thought, particularly when the hon. gentleman knew that the nation with which

he was dealing had held up the treaty to calmly consider it and would not assent thereto until the authorities were perfectly satisfied that the treaty was in the interest of France, that the Canadian Finance Minister might have had sufficient interest in the people of this country, sufficient regard for the wishes of the people and sufficient regard for the opinion of this House to at least say: We will get all the information we can and when we have obtained all the information we can we will ratify or refuse to ratify as may be in the interest of Canada. Supposing it should be the case that the effect of ratifying this treaty is to expose us to the maximum tariff of the United States. Let us assume, for a moment, this, because, surely, the Prime Minister will not claim that there is sufficient advantage to be gained by Canada, not even the little trade we do, but the increased trade that we may do with France under this treaty to justify the tremendous loss which would be inflicted on Canada by virtue of the imposition of the maximum tariff of the United States. Although the Finance Minister would not dream of saying that if the American maximum tariff were to be applied it would not be a far greater injury than the French treaty would be a benefit to us, he calmly tells us: I do not know whether it will be applied or not and I do not propose to wait to find out. I think the business men of Canada might well ponder that utterance of the Minister of Finance and perhaps some of them will come to the conclusion that if times do happen to improve a little in one year as compared with another it is not owing to any extraordinary astuteness or financial ability on the part of the government who are managing the affairs of this country


George Eulas Foster: Before the motion is adopted I would like to make a few more remarks. I do not think there is anything in the discussion of this question except a mere discussion of business matters. I do not know why the Minister of Finance should go off at a tangent and indulge in something which is not far removed from high-faluting as to the tremendously martial and vigorous stand that he is going to take against the United States. He was not going to be coerced- not much. He would stand by his guns as long as the guns had ammunition and he could keep on firing them! It was not necesary to the discussion of this question to go into that part of it. One is tempted to ask whether the Finance Minister was always as patriotic and decided over these matters in connection with the United States as he is to-day.


William Stevens Fielding: Always.


George Eulas Foster: Well, what disappointment has he received that has so soured him upon his former friends and- confederates. At one time he was hand in glove with prominent persons in the United States declaring, as my right hon. friend the Prime Minister declared, that they would nail to the masthead a certain flag written upon which was that Europe might go hang, Great Britain might go hang, and all the other colonies of Great Britain might go hang, but that they would hang together until they had brought about the adoption of their policy of continental union, or unrestricted reciprocity, coupled with discrimination against Great Britain and every colony of Great Britain. Those were the guns that he was ready to stand by at that time. Now they are very different guns and he is behind them. But this, after all, is a mere pop gun. The Minister of Finance knows exactly what it means, if he has thought of it at all. On one side you have a possible treaty with France, involving a trade altogether of only about $10,000,000 a year. On the other hand, you have a decided juncture of circumstances in connection with our trade in the United States which trade amounts to $270,000.000 per year. There is hardly a trader from Vancouver to Sydney who has not more or less intimate trade relations with the United States of America on which he makes profits, from which he gets gains and in the prosecution of which he has his capital employed. If the minister puts through any treaty so small as this, or even though it were larger, and the decision of the United States, through their commission and the president, is that in the end it discriminates against the United States he knows that the exact statement in the clause of the United States tariff is that thereupon 25 per cent is added to the duty on every article which goes from this country to the United States. That is a very serious thing. What happens as the next step? This country would certainly be acting outside of and recreant to its duty, should the United States put on that surtax of 25 per cent, if it did not follow suit with the surtax which is allowable and which is possible under the law which we have in Canada. What would that mean? It would mean a tremendous disturbance and dislocation of business amounting to $270,000,000 per year as between us and the United States. I am just as strong as the Minister of Finance in this statement, and on this ground that if, after all the facts of the case were understood this parliament of Canada comes to the conclusion that it is in the interest of this country to legislate in a certain way, then it should legislate in that way whether the United States puts 25 per cent or 50 per cent upon our imports.

But, I hold it to be the height of absurdity and childishness for the Minister of Finance of Canada to refuse a fair delay in the adjudication of this House upon this treaty until we can find out all the facts of the case so that this House will know whether or not, if it does carry out the French treaty, it will be face to face with the condition to which I have referred in connection with the trade of the United States. If after we have all the information we believe that it is best for us to do so, we have the right to do so, notwithstanding anything that may be contained in the tariff of the United States. All we ask is that until we get that information, until a reasonable time at least is allowed for the getting of that information, this House shall not be pressed to come to a conclusion with reference to this treaty. This treaty has been held up now for about two years and nothing very harmful has happened. It would not hurt things materially if it were hung up for two, three or four months more. In two, three or four months more we certainly would know the attitude of the United States and then we could legislate with our eyes open upon the wide basis of all the facts. I am told -it goes through the papers at least-that the commission which has now been organized and which is at work in the United States, has instructions to take up the case of Canada first of all the countries and it is within the range of possibility that they will conclude their investigation into the facts in reference to Canada in a short period, and then the decision of the President may be found out. That is all. There is no need of going into heroics about it, there is no use of being ultra-patriotic as the Minister of Finance has tried to be, getting up and shooting off his ammunition and artillery all at once in our faces. By and by if we are pressed to the worst of it I will even stand behind him and furnish the ammunition for him to shoot off as far as my vigour goes, if we find, after the facts have been ascertained, that it is right and politic for us to take a certain course.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I sincerely hope that the Finance Minister will not attempt to force this House to take definite action at the present time on the French treaty, as in 1897 he forced this House to denounce the German treaty, which has resulted in twelve years of practical commercial waT with Germany. That country last year imported two billion dollars worth of goods, one billion dollars worth of food products, three hundred million dollars worth of just such products as we are producing on the farms of Canada. We are practically driven out of the German market, ^whereas last year the Argentine Republic sold to Ger-Mr. FOSTER.
many $116,000,000 worth of goods, Australia $48,000,000 worth, and the United States $214,000,000 worth, against a paltry million dollars worth from Canada. Canada has been practically driven out of Germany, the second best market in the world, because of the action of this government in regard to the German treaty. On that occasion, Sir Charles Tupper urged the hon. gentleman to .stay his hand, but in vain. The hon. gentleman is taking a similar position today with regard to the French treaty, which may result in the United States placing on goods from Canada a surtax similar to the one placed on goods from Canada going into Germany. I sincerely hope that the Finance Minister will wait until we learn definitely what position the United States is going to take in the matter.


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: May I ask the Finance Minister one question? If he were today absolutely sure that the ratification of this treaty would entail an extra duty_ of 25 per cent on all Canadian products going to the United States, would he proceed with the ratification of this treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: I wish to answer all questions frankly; but on a great international question it is the part of wisdom not to answer too broadly. If the question of my hon. friend implies that we are bound to be governed in out commercial policy by the action of the United States government or the United States congress, or that we must wait to learn what the United States government or the United States congress will do on any tariff matter before we mould our own policy, I cannot subscribe to any such doctrine.


William Sora Middlebro: The Finance Minister has not answered my question. The reason I put it is this. Unless he can answer it in the affirmative, and say that he would .still ratify this treaty even if he discovered subsequently that the effect of ratifying would be to entail an extra 25 per cent duty on Canadian products going to the United States, he has no right to ask us to ratify the treaty. I am fair to say that I believe that if he absolutely knew to-day that the ratification of the French treaty would bring this result, recognizing the vast injury that would be done to this country as compared with the trifling benefit we would receive by the ratification of the French treaty, I think he would hold his hand.


William Stevens Fielding: If the United States government were to take the course my hon. friend suggests, they would have more to lose by it than Canada.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: I do not think we should deal with this question at all from a party standpoint. The members of this

House, on both sides, are sent here to work for the best interest of their constituents, and of the country as a whole. We are practical business men sent here to attend to the business of the country. Now, with regard to this question, we sent two of our ministers to France, a country that is doing a small trade with Canada, to see if we could not enlarge that trade. They made a treaty which is subject to the ratification of the representaives of the people of this country. When making that treaty, they believed that they wrnre acting in the best interest of the country. But since that time things have changed. The congress of the United States has passed certain legislation which applies to all countries, but most directly to Canada, in which they say to us, if you give any other country better terms than you give us, we will increase the tariff against you 25 per cent. How will that affect us? The Canadian farmer will have to pay an increase of $1 on every ton of hay, $10 on every horse, from $1 to $2 on every sheep or lamb he sends to that country. How can the farmers support a government that makes a bargain for getting a little trade with France by which it loses a great trade with the United States? I say it is the duty of the government to stay their hand until we see what our neighbours are going to do. It is the duty of every member of this House, on either side, to say to the government, we will not ratify that treaty until we see what action the United States government will take.


William Barton Northrup: I think every allowance should be made for the Minister of Finance, for this is one of those unfortunate questions which touch that autonomy which has of late become such a red rag to hon. gentlemen opposite. The moment any question touches that autonomy, these hon. gentlemen seem to lose all sense of perspective. It might do for somebody in a small township council to talk as the Minister of Finance has been talking this afternoon, but it hardly accords with the dignity of this House. The hon. gentleman talks about our being governed by the United States. Let us use the English language in something of the sense in which it is understood by everybody except the hon. gentleman. Nobody has suggested that this House should be governed by the United States. The proposition is that this House should legislate exactly as it thinks in the best interests of Canada. That is not being governed by the United States. The hon. gentleman is being governed by the United States through a fear he seems to have that somebody wants to interfere with his prerogative; but as there are six or seven million people in this country, and only two of those went as delegates to France, and are
personally interested in having this treaty go through, right or wrong, it would be well to balance the interest of the rest of the six or seven million people against the exclusive interests of these two. If the Finance Minister can show that we are in any sense being governed by the United States in the proposition laid down, namely that this House should know what it is doing, that it should get all the information possible before it decides, then the more we have of such government by the United States the better. [DOT]


Mr. TURRIFF.: , If this House followed the suggestion made by hon. gentlemen opposite, it would be simply extending an invitation to the Congress of the United States to put on that extra 25 per cent duty. I believe that if we want to prevent the United States from taking the action suggested by hon. gentlemen on the other side of the House that we ought to go on right now and conduct our business exactly as we would if the American tariff were not now under revision.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the hon. gentleman not believe that the United States will put that extra duty on if they think it is to their interest to do so.	.


John Gillanders Turriff: I do not think there is one chance in ten thousand of their putting it on because for every dollar they hurt us, they will hurt themselves four.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If you give that information to the Finance Minister it will help us on.


Mr. T. CHISHOLM.: Will the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) say if it is still provided by the French treaty that absinthe and imitation brandies should be brought into this country at a reduced rate?


William Stevens Fielding: If those articles were expressed in the treaty, of course nothing has occurred to change them; but my hon. friend is mistaken; the treaty does not provide for a reduction of duty on the articles he has referred to. Except for one small paragraph in regard to cattle the treaty is precisely as it was when it was last discussed, and I think my hon. friend will find he is mistaken on this point.


Thomas Chisholm: Those articles were mentioned in the last treaty, they are in the list yet.


William Stevens Fielding: I think my hon. friend will find he is mistaken.


Thomas Chisholm: I have it and I shall show it to the hon. minister.


William Stevens Fielding: I will be glad if my hon. friend will show it to me.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I am of the opinion, and I know that a great many other busi-

ness men in this country are of the opinion that this trade treaty policy which has been adopted by the government is entirely wrong and that we should have one tariff for every country. Then if there is any change to be made or any particular article to be imported from any country the tariff on that article could be lowered. By making treaties with everybody we will some day find ourselves in the position of a certain old gentleman who had an animal and every one told him what to do with it; we will be making treaties for every one else and have nothing left for ourselves. I would strongly counsel delay in the matter of this or any other treaty at present for a more cogent reason than any that has been advanced to-day. An election will be held in Great Britain at an early date, and one of the great questions before the people there is whether Great Britain shall change her free trade policy and adopt a protective policy, and if she adopts a protective policy, whether a preference will be granted to the colonies. It is useless to talk hypocritically, the fact remains that the people of this country, especially the farming community, would like to see a mutual preference between Great Britain and Canada. Such a preference would benefit the farming community and every one else in the country. But if we adopt a great many treaties with various countries,. and continue that policy, the day will come when we cannot take advantage of a preference offered us by Great Britain unless we denounce treaties, with France, Japan and other countries. The House will remember that when we offered a preference to Great Britain it could not be put into effect until certain trade treaties which Great Britain had with foreign countries had been denounced. Within the next two or three months we will know exactly the position of the British parliament for the next four years and think that this parliament should hesitate and should delay taking action on any of its trade relations with any other country and tieing ourselves up for a period of years with any country until wre know what our position is going to be in reference to a preference with England. I think that is a strong argument for delay, and one which should appeal to every member of this House who would like to see us obtain some slight advantage in the markets of the mother country. Any small trade advantage that would be offered to us, would certainly not be offered bv Great Britain to France or any other foreign country, and for that reason the clearer we keep our hands from treaties with other countries, by simply adopting one single tariff for every country, the safer will be the ground on which we stand. We will then be on the safe ground on which this country stood for many years and on Mr. J. A. CURRIE.
which the foundations of its greatness were laid. We are now departing from that policy, adopting the principle of trade treaties with every country so that articles from one country are admitted at a lower rate of duty than from another country. The effect of that is that articles are being sent from countries against which we have a high tariff through countries enjoying a reduced tariff, so that the Customs Department has constant trouble in reference to this question of the country of origin. The Customs Department claims that articles are sent to Great Britain from Germany and other countries, given a coat of lacquer^ or varnish, and passed through the Canadian customs as British. Such cases of fraud will occur and no one can prevent them; it is human nature to try and get the best of the customs.
In view of the serious aspect of the question in relation to Great Britain and the probability that we will have to consider a preference from the mother country possibly before the end of this session, I believe it would be advisable for us to delay any consideration of any trade treaty with any foreign country until we know just where we stand in relation to Great Britain.


Mr. CROCKET.: What is the object of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) in presenting this resolution at this particular time? I understood him to intimate that there would be no objection to allowing the Bill when it is brought down to stand for any length of time at the request of any member. Personally I look on this resolution as committing the House to the statement that it is expedient to approve of this treaty, and my own view is that I would not care to support the ratification of this treaty if I thought it would bring into effect the provision of the United States tariff subjecting Canadian goods to the extra 25 per cent duty. I have no hesitation in saying that if that is likely to be the effect of the ratification of this treaty I would vote against it, and when the Finance Minister is not able to give the House any more definite statement than he has given upon this point I do not think we should be called on to commit ourselves by the adoption of this resolution at this time. Has the Finance Minister consulted the Justice Department on this question? As I understand it, it is a matter almost entirely of legal interpretation and it seems to me that before he calls upon the members of this House to approve of the resolution he ought to be able to make some more definite statement as to its probable effect in reference to the application of the United States tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid the Justice Department would hardly undertake to in-

terpret the American law. The debate has taken a broader form than I anticipated. I suggested that it would be a convenience for the House to adopt the resolution pro forma in order that the Bill might be introduced and be available for discussipn, so that the whole matter could be gone into at a later stage. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) nodded his assent and I presumed there was no objection to that suggestion. I did not expect there would be any debate at all. What I intended was that the resolution should be adopted, 'as is usually done, and then, when a Bill founded on it is introduced, we can discuss the matter on its merits. I have no objection to any reasonable delay being given to enable any hon. gentleman on either side to become better informed, but I am not prepared to wait until the first of April next in order to ascertain what might be the American view.


Wilfrid Laurier: Passing over for a moment, the important observations of my hon. friend for North Simcoe (Mr. Currie), may I observe that this discussion has proceeded under a misconception. If I understand the point raised, it is that this treaty, if adopted, might possibly be interpreted by the United States as discriminatory against it under article 2 of their tariff and cause the American government to impose an extra ad valorem duty, of 25 per cent on Canadian goods. The point taken is that any favour given under the proposed French treaty could be considered by the Americans as discrimination against them. I do not see how they can take that position; but if that point be well taken, it applies equally to our present relations with France, because we have in force now a treaty with France which admits certain goods at a preferential rate. If there be discrimination in the new treaty, there also is in the existing treaty, so that even if we should not ratify the treaty now submitted, we shall still be in the same position as regards our American neighbours in April next as we will be if we adopt the proposed treaty.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: No one desires that this country should take any undignified position with regard to its right to control its own tariff, but it must be borne in mind, notwithstanding what my hon. friend the Prime Minister says, that the ratification of this treaty may possibly have some bearing upon more than half our total foreign trade. That is a very important consideration. Possibly there might be a distinction between a treaty already in existence and one which we might enter into after the tariff with the United States has been framed and we have had notice of it. I do not think it would be advisable to take the
position stated by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, that we should not have any regard whatever to the attitude of other countries in fiscal matters. The best evidence that such a position is not a good one is the fact that when the French Senate refused to ratify this treaty in its original form, this government modified it in order that it might receive the sanction of the Senate. This government took into consideration the attitude of the French Republic, when they signed a second treaty modifying very materially the position of affairs as compared with the first. I do not think we should be in any undue haste. In the old days, my right hon. friend the Prime Minister, the Minister of Customs and their colleagues, were rather inclined to censure the Conservative administration for having taken what they deemed to be a very harsh and forbidding attitude in connection with our trade relations with the United States and were wont to inform the people that if a more conciliatory and courteous attitude had been adopted, our trade relations with our neighbours might have assumed a very much better condition. I believe that the men at the head of affairs in the United States to-day are of a friendly disposition to this country. I do not believe for one moment that they would be inclined to adopt any harsh attitude or take any unfriendly measures towards this country in any respect. I venture to think it might be worth while to have some reasonable delay. This treaty can be ratified at any time up to the close of the present session. There is no reason for undue haste. I do not think that either members of the government or private members are prepared to say that there may not come to us later on, before the close of the session, some information that might be of use to us in reaching a conclusion as to what the best interests of the country demand.


William Paterson: What are the circumstances? A year ago a treaty was negotiated, through the British commissioner and the Canadian ministers, with France. This treaty was signed by the British commissioner as well as the Canadian ministers. It came to this parliament and this parliament ratified it. Every member in the House voted for it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No.


William Paterson: I believe a few did vote against it. It was however ratified by a very large maiority on both sides. Since then some little change has taken place which involves this treaty coming back to this parliament for sanction. Have we changed our views since last session? If that were the case, it might be something to consider. [DOT] But that is not the ground taken by the hon. member for North Toron-

to (Mr. Foster). Is it that the bargain is not a good one? There is no pretense of anything of the kind. My hon. friend from Jacques Cartier says it is a good treaty.
What is the true course in order to conserve the dignity of this parliament, even looking at the matter from the point of view of the leader of the opposition? France having agreed to this treaty and signed, this parliament having agreed to it and ratified it last session, a slight amendment that no one, I venture to say, considers of the least importance, must be ratified, thus making it necessary that the treaty should come back here. It is true, the whole question of acceptance or rejection of the treaty is before us now. Have our views been changed in any degree as to the beneficial effect of the treaty? If so, that is a point worthy of consideration. But, because there has been legislation by a foreign nation, acting within its rights and acting in its own interest, is it a very dignified position for this parliament to take to say that, though we entered in good faith into this treaty with the republic of France, we will, on the question of the ratification of this slight amendment, change our whole course? Should we maintain our dignity by saying that, because there are suspicions or doubts that the legislation of a foreign country may receive a certain interpretation, we will be swerved from what we have agreed is our duty in the matter? Also, I would ask hon. members who have spoken on this subject if the5r think that speaking of action on the part of a foreign government and crying it from the house tops is likely to make that government yield you any better terms? That, I think, is worthy of consideration. Will you strengthen the position of this parliament by such a course? Will you add to its dignity?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Your position will be stronger if you do not tie your hands by passing the treaty.


William Paterson: Our position with whom?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: With the people you are speaking of. You will prevent them from accomplishing that object.


William Paterson: We prevent them from accomplishing that object if we do not ratify the treaty?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, if there is anything in your argument.


William Paterson: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Lancaster) then, is in favour of our throwing aside this treaty for fear the United States may take the course of action which is in his mind at this time. If that is the hon. gentleman's position and the position of his friends, the matter is one for them to consider. The hon; member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) referred Mr. PATERSON.
to action taken by this House in relation to the German treaty. He seemed to think that we had done a wrong thing in that matter. I believe that, to this day, the hon. gentleman is the only member of this House who has found fault with the action then taken. I have not heard another member on either side venture to say that Canada did not take a dignified stand at that time or that the action taken was not in the interest of the people of this country. It is true, there was a dislocation of trade for the time being. And I quite agree that you cannot wholly ignore the legislation of other countries. But, when you come to frame your tariff you take these matters into consideration and decide upon your action in the interest of the Canadian people under the circumstances. But, when the hon. member (Mr. Armstrong) speaks of our action in relation to the German treaty as though it had been a disaster, I cannot so view it. It is true that trade was interrupted and forced [DOT] into new channels, and that is inconvenient, to say the least of it. If the United States, legislating in their own interest, enact laws by which trade is disturbed and turned into new channels, we must meet the changed conditions, there is no doubt about that. We would have to legislate in that matter, as we are bound to do in everv matter, in the interests of the Canadian people. And so we are brought right back to the point from which we started. If the hon. member takes the'position that, if the Americans were to tell us that we would come under their highest tariff if we dared to put this treaty through he would throw the treaty over, not because he objects to the treaty but because pressure has been brought to bear upon him, I can only say that that does not seem to me a maintenance of the dignity of this parliament upon which the leader of the opposition dwelt so strongly. It would be a matter much to be regretted if we were put under the maximum tariff of the United States. It certainly would dislocate trade temporarily, and the trade is a very large one indeed. Our trade with the United States is greater than with any other country, not even excepting Great Britain itself. And, looking at it from the point of view of the United States, our trade with them is by no means insignificant. I believe that Canada is the third nation in the importance of its trade with the United States. You cannot disturb such a volume of trade, import and export, without inconvenience and difficulties resulting. Nations have to consider that: no doubt they will; and no doubt they will act as they may seem in their best, interest under the circumstances as they exist. I confess that I am rather amused by what some hon. members opposite have said with regard to our export trade. They say that if we have to pay so much more for our sheep and cattle exported to the United

States, it will be injurious to us. That is true, but I may say for the comfort of these gentlemen that I do not think our great agricultural exports will go to the United States, or that they go there now, It is true the market for some of these exports is found there, but the market is very limited indeed. And, speaking in round numbers, the imports from the United States are about double the exports to that country. And some of these hon. gentlemen who have spoken in favour of delay have often lamented that there are so many manufactured goods from the United States imported into Canada. They say that $40,000,000 of manufactured goods are imported from the United States into Canada, all of which goods should be manufactured in this country. They ask, why do not you put up your tariff and shut them out? But to-day they are wonderfully concerned about the matter because there is a prospect of higher duties being put on. That is wholly within our own domain; we determine wdiat duty should be put upon certain imports into our country, just as the Americans determine what shall be paid on imports into their country from Canada and elsewhere.
When you come to the exports of Canada, we do a trade with them as well as an import trade; there is no doubt about that. And that would be a matter, as I said before, of consequence in a trade so large between two friendly nations such as they are. But shall we on that account submit to have our legislative hands tied, and not carry out in good faith an agreement that was made, and a treaty that was made between this country and the republic of France? Are we prepared to do that? That is the way we must look at it now. If you are prepared to carry it out, no matter what may be the action of any other nation, why may you not as well carry it out now as at any other time? What will be gained by waiting? No one can tell. It has _ been said that the President of the United States has experts who will inform him on the conditions of trade between all the countries and the United States, and that he will be the judge, and he will judge, as the hon. member for North Toronto says, on the facts that will be laid before him. Well, what are the facts that will be laid before him? What, if you do not pass this treaty at all, will be the fact that will be laid before him with reference to our treaty with France? They will have to report that Canada has a treaty with France in existence. She has not denounced it. True, she is repealing it in another Bill that is before parliament; but in the meantime it is in force. They report that fact, they cannot report any more than that. If we pass this treaty they will have to report the same. What will be the action of the United States in reference to that? The 7
United States is a great nation, a dignified nation. The United States, as I understand it, have always held that it is not to be considered a violation of the favoured-nation doctrine, if they considered themselves under it, when they chose to give to another nation certain favours for certain favours received. They have always taken that ground. In my judgment they will have to change their whole past procedure if they decide to penalize us -because we have made a treaty with France in which we get advantage for advantage. They have their treaties. Would they ask from other nations, would they take away from other nations the liberty that they claim for themselves? They have a treaty with Cuba at the present time, I believe; they have had treaties that we did not participate in, a limited number, a treaty with Gerrnany, and with France also. That has been their course all through. They have always taken that stand, and I see no reason why they should depart from that policy at the present time. If that be so, why should there be any hesitancy on our part? Again, I say, even if there were in our minds a thought that they would reverse their mode of dealing, and the ground which they have taken in dealing with other foreign nations, even if they were to reverse their policy entirely in that respect, what should Canada do? Should we not go on and carry out a treaty solemnly ratified in large part, as it was a year ago, before this question ever arose in the United States? I am not blind to what the effect would be on Canada's trade under certain conditions. But it seems to me that the dignity of this parliament, alluded to by the leader of the opposition, would -call upon us to go on. We are acting within our rights, we are doing what we consider to be for the benefit of the people of this country. And should another country take the view that we should be penalized because- we have exercised -our own rights, not encroaching on the rights of any one else, what is the course we should pursue even then? Is it not to maintain a dignified course, and go on with our legislation, while having due regard to the rights of our neighbours, making Canadian interests our paramount motive, as they are bound to be.


William Findlay Maclean: It occurs to me in this discussion that we cannot find out what the attitude of the United States government will be unless we pass the treaty. The public men who are charged with a certain duty in connection with this matter in the United States do not -deal with hypothetical cases; and it strikes me that unless we pass the treaty, we cannot ascertain what the -action of the United States will be. I must also add, in view of what has been said here this afternoon, that if we are to have our freedom of action interfered



with by some kind of legislation in the United States, this country will be paralysed in anything we may wish to do. We will be told that if we go in for preferential trade within the empire there is a clause in " the tariff of the United States. that will interfere with our freedom of action in that regard; and if we admit that contention, why, we can do nothing. In order to preserve our freedom of action, I say w7e must fix the Canadian policy from the point of view of Canadian interests, and it would not be wise for us to show by our action that Canadians are to be intimidated in their policy. As one who believes in a national policy for this country, I say we ought to be prepared at all times to take our own part, and fight it out. Now, if we are to incur discrimination by this United States tariff, I do not think it will be on account of the French treaty, but rather on account of the patriotic action of this country in proposing, if we do so, to put export duties on our raw materials going into the United States, in order to secure that they may be worked up in this country. It is our action in regard to saw-logs in Ontario, and our action in regard to pulpwood . in Quebec and elsewhere, which may bring upon us this threatened action of the United States. I, for one, am not prepared to abandon that patriotic stand the provinces have taken in regard to pulp-wood and saw-logs, even if the United States were to threaten us with a surtax that they are able to impose by their tariff law. So, while I acknowledge that 'we should not embark thoughtlessly in a course that will injure us, still I contend that we cannot ascertain what the United States will do until we pass the treaty. If we say that we will do nothing in this country for fear of incurring some tariff punishment from the United States, then we have 'parted with our freedom of action. Let me say again that if we are to incur the surtax, it will be not so much because of our action in regard to the French treaty as because it is proposed in this country to adopt the patriotic policy of trying to have out raw products worked up as much as possible in our own country, instead of letting them be worked up in the United States.


Robert Laird Borden: One word with regard to an observation that fell from the Minister of Customs. He has argued that the dignity of this parliament makes it necessary for us to ratify the French treaty as amended. I would not be inclined, however, to concur in that. Parliament did not make the treaty, the Crown made the treaty and the treaty, as far as .Canada was concerned, was made subject to the ratification of this parliament. The government of the French renublic made that treaty on the part of France subject to the ratification of the French parliament. The French par-Mr. A. F. MACLEAN.
liament saw fit, in its wisdom, to declare it would not ratify that treaty without a certain amendment. It was entirely within the right and dignity of the French parliament to take that course. It is equally within the right and dignity of this House of parliament to say that it will not ratify the treaty with that amendment.


William Paterson: With this distinction, that we had ratified it once and they had not.


Robert Laird Borden: We never ratified the treaty in its amended form as far as I am aware.


William Paterson: It is a very slight amendment.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Minister of Customs says that it is a very slight amendment. It was not regarded as a slight amendment by the French parliament because they declared that they would not ratify the treaty without it. If it were sufficient to justify that refusal of action on their part it might be sufficient to justify a refusal of action on our part. In neither case would we be departing from our right; in neither case would we be infringing the dignity of parliament.


William Paterson: If it was for that reason that they rejected it.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly; and I suppose it might be added that we would have the right to take into consideration the conditions as they are to-day.


Thomas Chisholm: I rise to give a little information to the minister who framed this treaty. I am surprised that he does not know what is in it. This is a 'Convention respecting the commercial relations between Canada and France.' It is an official document issued by the King's Printer. I find at page 37, ' French products enjoying the benefit of the intermediate tariff.' If the products that are enumerated under this head are not going to get any benefit, why does it say 'enjoying the benefit'? If they are not.to be brought in at a lower rate why is it put in that shape? I turn over to see page 38 and I find there a reference to absinthe. Absinthe is dope. It represents knock-out drops. There is not a man in this House that does not know what that means. Absinthe is one of the greatest curses in France. Medical men say in France that it is sending more men to the asylums than all the other causes put together. I spoke and voted against this treaty simply because of that one article being included in the treaty and I thought the government would have taken steps to have had it eliminated. Are the people in France unable to find a market for that product at the present time? They have prohibited it in the

French army and the medical men of France met in convention and asked that the use of this poisonous drug be prohibited in France. I suppose they have no market for it without sending it to us poor Canadians? I see that ' imitations of brandy ' are included in item 156. I had better read that item and the committee will see the kind of products that are being brought into this country at a reduced rate,' or rather enjoying the benefit of the minimum tariff.
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, pyroxilic spirit or any substance known as wood spirits or methylated spirits, absinthe-
Will the minister take notice there?
-arrack or palm spirit, brandy, including artificial brandy and imitations of brandy, n.o.p., cordials and liqueurs, all kinds, n.o.p., mescal, pulque, rum shrub, Schiedam and other schnapps; tafia, angostura, and similar alcoholic bitters or beverages; and wines, n.o.p., containing more than 40 p.c. of proof spirit.
Spirits and strong waters of any kind, mixed with any ingredient or ingredients.
That is what is being brought into Canada. I object to the treaty on the ground of bringing these things into Canada and giving them any benefit at all and that is the reason why I voted against the treaty. I did so also for other reasons. I saw that the maximum and minimum tariff were the same and that while a number of things were enumerated as coming into this country and getting the benefit of the minimum tariff there was really no benefit, the maximum and minimum tariff in France being exactly the same on horses, cattle, peas, oats and other grains. The House was misled. It did not understand it. I am sure that hon. members did not know that these knock-out drops were being brought in at a reduced rate or they would not have supported the measure. "


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid that my hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Chisholm) must have been misled bv somebody when this matter was before parliament at an earlier stage, because he certainly has an erroneous conception. He did not get it from this side of the House, and if he was led into error he must blame some one else. Let us understand what is the point of difference between my hon. friend and myself. We must connect his present observations with those that occurred a few minutes ago. He stated that by this .treaty we were introducing brandy and absinthe at reduced rates. That is the point of difference between my hon. friend and myself, that is the basis of his whole speech.
7}
He is wrong. This treaty does not provide for the introduction of brandy or absinthe or any one of these things at a reduced rate. When I tell my hon. friend that, the whole foundation of his case is gone.


Thomas Chisholm: At page 37 we have in schedule 'B,' 'French products enjoying the benefit of the intermediate tariff.' What does that mean? If they are enjoying the benefit of the intermediate tariff are they not coming into this country at a reduced rate? I think the fair inference is that they are to come in at a reduced rate.


William Stevens Fielding: I would have supposed that instead of being in doubt or being led astray for a couple of years on this subject my hon. friend would have taken the trouble to have turned to the Canadian tariff and found out what the benefits were under the intermediate tariff; because, if, instead of being in this doubt and of voting wrongly, my hon. friend had turned to the Canadian tariff, item 156, I think it is, he would have found that the intermediate tariff and the general tariff are the same and that there is no reduction at all.


Thomas Chisholm: That is so, and that is where the deception comes in in this whole treaty. I ask that absinthe be totally prohibited.


William Stevens Fielding: That is another question.


Thomas Chisholm: Why this deception? Why should it state that articles are receiving the benefit of the treaty when they are receiving no benefit whatever? Why do you say that cattle are to be allowed in under the intermediate tariff, when the maximum and minimum tariff are the same? If my hon. friend will read the speeches I made a few years ago he will see what I said on the subject then.
Mr.' FIELDING. My hon. friend has confessed that he voted against the treaty because he was persuaded that we were bringing in brandy and absinthe at reduced rates. That is the important ground upon which he voted against the treaty. My hon. friend ought now to vote for the treaty and put himself right, because I have shown that he is entirely mistaken. The intermediate tariff and the general tariff on brandy and absinthe are the same and when our French brethren get the benefits of the intermediate tariff on brandy and absinthe-they get nothing they were not enjoying now, because there is no reduction in the intermediate tariff on these articles.


Thomas Chisholm: If there is no. benefit why do you put it in at all?


William Stevens Fielding: When I was young I used to think that there were lots of things that needeed explanation, but now that I am getting old I have come to the conclusion that for pretty nearly everything in life there is a reason if you will only look for it. The reason here is very simple. There is a number of articles on which we in Canada are to receive the benefit of the minimum tariff in France. But if he looks carefully into it, he will discover that in several cases there is no benefit at all, because the general and the minimum are the same. These are not fixed rates of duty. At any moment France might adopt a minimum tariff which would fix reduced duties on grains or other articles; and if it gave any country in the world the benefit of those reduced duties, Canada could claim them and get them, Then the French government turn around and say to us: If at any time you reduce the duty on brandy to any country, we want the benefit of that reduction, and we agree to give it to them.	[DOT]


Thomas Chisholm: Why not prohibit the importation of absinthe entirely?


William Stevens Fielding: That is not a question that arises under the French treaty at all.


Mr. BRODER.: Would you be at liberty to prohibit it while this treaty is in existence?


William Stevens Fielding: Most certainly we would. All we would not be permitted to do would be to admit absinthe or brandy from any other country on more favoured terms than from France. If we wished to prohibit its importation altogether, not from France alone, but from all countries, we would have a perfect right to do so.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Does not this treaty make a reduction in the duties on wines coming from France to Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Mr. SAM SHARPE.: Is there any provision, either in the treaty or in the proposed Bill, for the termination of the treaty after notice from the government?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, there is the same provision as in the present treaty, that we can determine the treaty on giving reasonable notice.


Mr. SPROULE.: I would have thought, with regard to absinthe, that we would have done as we did with regard to oleomargarine coming from the United States-prohibit the importation entirely while the treaty was being made.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Chisholm) may have a misconception, which the House also may have received from him, that there is some special Mr. T. CHISHOLM.
enactment in this treaty with regard to absinthe. That is not so. Absinthe is one of many articles which are grouped together under one number in our custom3 tariff, and the French treaty simply provides that, with regard to that whole group of items, whatever benefit may accrue to any country from Canada shall accrue to France.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Does the Minister of Finance say that there is no provision in this treaty to prevent the coming into this country of wines that may be doctored with absinthe and other noxious substances, to come into competition with Canadian wines?


William Stevens Fielding: The treaty makes no change with respect to wines, except as to the rates of duty. The effect of the importation of wines on the public health is another question. Under our tariff we admit wines at certain rates of duty. We provide in the treaty that certain wines of low spirit, commonly called light wines, may be imported at lower rate. As to whether or not they may be doctored, the same question can be asked with regard to the importation of wines from any other country.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: For that and other reasons, I w>as of the opinion a couple of years ago that this treaty was not in the interest of Canada. I am still of the same opinion, because I have heard nothing from the Finance Minister to-day to convince me to the contrary. Therefore, I want to protest against this resolution passing or being reported.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time, and agreed to.
Mr. FIELDING moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 12) respecting a certain supplementary convention between His Majesty and the President of the French Republic.


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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER, moved that the House go into Committee to-morrow to consider the following resolutions:
Resolved, that it is expedient to pass an Act to prevent the introduction or spreading of insects, pests and diseases destructive to vegetation; providing for the granting of compensation for matter destroyed for this purpose, the appointment of inspectors for the enforcement of the Act, and penalties for its contravention.
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Sir WILFRID LAURIER, House adjourned at 5.35 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, November 19, 1909 DEATH OP MR. BARR.