1909-05-13

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FRASER-by Mr. Fraser-asked:
1.	Has the government bought a right-of-way to the wharf built at Panmore island, Prince Edward Island? If so, how much was paid for such right-of-way, and when was the amount paid ?
2.	Is the government aware that no right-of-way has yet been opened to said wharf? If so, is it the intention of the government to open a right-of-way at once?
3.	Does the government intend to have any dredging done at said wharf this season?
Hon. W. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public works):: 1.	Yes, $150, paid 9th April, 1906.
2.	The resident engineer reports that the right of way is now open and available for use, and that, previous to its opening, the owner of the adjoining property, from whom right-of-way was purchased, allowed free use of his private road which permitted good approach to wharf.
3.	The department is not aware of any dredging being required at Panmnre Island.


Mr. AYLESWORTH.: 


INVERNESS HARBOUR.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MADDIN-asked:
1.	What disposition was made of the sum of $5,300 expended out of the vote of $10,000, fiscal year 1908-9, at Inverness harbour, county of Inverness, Nova Scotia?
2.	What were the items of said expenditure?
Hon. W. PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1 and 2. The expenditure on Inverness harbour during the last fiscal year was
$910.96, as follows:
D. R. McLean, foreman	$ 70 00
A. S. McDonald, carpenter ....	6 00
Materials	 834 96
Total	-$910 96


SOUTH AFRICAN LAND GRANTS.
Mr. DANIEL asked:: 1.	How many South African land grant warrants have been located, and what are the locations, filed with the department?
2.	How many appointments of substitutes have been approved by the department?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of Interior) :: 1.	654 located as follows:
Battleford	 58
Calgary	 164
Edmonton	 31
Humboldt	 28
Lethbridge	 50
Moosejaw7	 177
Prince Albert	 73
Regina	 8
Red Deer	 48
Winnipeg	 2
Yorkton	 15
2. 1,102.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL PENITENTIARY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. MONK-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
1.	Who are the present contractors for materials for the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?
2.	What contracts has J. G. Heroux obtained within a year for the supply of timber to the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary?
3.	What are the quantities and qualities of the timber and the prices paid to the said J. G. Heroux for the timber furnished and to be furnished by him ?
4.	Is the government informed that the said J. G. Heroux does not, it is stated, furnish timber of the quality mentioned in his contract?
5.	Have the inspectors of the penitentiary received inquiries in reference to what is passing in the delivery of building timber at St. Vincent de Paul?
6.	If statements are correct, why is building timber of an inferior quality furnished by the said J. G. Heroux, now received by the authorities at the same price as timber of first-class?
Hon. A. B. AYLESWORTH (Minister of Justice):: 1.	E. M. Booth, blankets; A. Baile, hard
coal; T. F. Moore & Co., coal screenings; Imperial Oil Co., Ltd., coal oil; J. G. Heroux. cordwood; John M. Garland, Son & Co., dry goods; Parke & Parke, drugs; E. Auclair & Co., fresh meat; Macnee & Minnes, frieze and yarn; Hudon & Orsali, groceries, black tea; F. J. Castle & Co., green tea; Caver-hill, Learmont & Co., hardware sundries; Lewis Bros., Ltd., hardware staples; Beard-more & Co., leather and findings; H. La-montagne & Co., sole leather; Joseph Paquette, milk; Canadian Oil Co., oils; Lake-field Portland Cement Co , Portland cement; Poitras Woollen Mills, prison cloth and uniform serge; A. Racine & Co., underclothing.	,	,	,
2.	One only, for the supply of maple, birch and tamarack cordwood.
3.	The contractor shall supply only such quantities as may be required. Quality, sound. Prices, maple $6, birch $6, tamarack $5, f.o.b. penitentiary siding, per cord of 96 cubic feet.
4.	No.
5.	No inquiries, but the inspectors received a letter, of which the following is a translation:
St Vincent de Paul, May 2, 1909. Sirs the Inspectors,-I can inform you that a carload of lumber was unloaded the 28th April, the part I hare seen was cull. It is elm plank, 3-in. thick. That I had three men to see it, and that this lumber must be very dear. The same man has a lot of cedar posts about 25 feet long, which are at the disposition of the penitentiary.
Your all devoted servant,
(Sgd.) ALFRED GAGNON.
6.	A shipment of lumber for building purposes arrived at the penitentiary on the 29th ultimo. It was not accepted by the authorities at the same price as timber of first-class. The warden examined the lumber the day it arrived and reported that it was 'not at all good' and 'not of the quality required,' and refused to accept it.


MACKIE LEASE ON MILK RIVER.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WALLACE-by Mr. Taylor-asked:
Will the minister give full particulars with regard to the Mackie lease on the Milk river, in Southern Alberta?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: Ranch 1970 comprises township 2, range 18 and that portion south of the Milk river of township 2, range 19, wrest 4th meridian, containing an area of 30,325 acres. This ranche wTas granted to Mr. A. T. Mackie under the authority of an order in council
203}
dated 31st October, 1901. The lease is for 21 years from the 1st March, 1902. The lands included in this ranch are not open to homestead entry or sale but the lease may be cancelled on giving the lessee two years' notice. This ranch was assigned to Messrs. A. and H. Mackie on the 23rd April, 1903, and still stands in their names.
Ranch 2131 comprises towmship 2, range 18 and 19, west 4th meridian, except Hudson's Bay Company and school lands, and contains an area of 41,280 acres. This ranch was granted to Mr. A. T. Mackie under the authority of an order in council dated the 24th May, 1902. The lease is a closed one and covers a period of 21 years from the 1st of August, 1902. The ranch was assigned to Messrs. A. and H. Mackie on the 23rd April, 1903, in whose name it still stands.
Ranch 3206 comprises township 2, range
17,	(except section 8, the south half and northwest quarter of section 26, the north half of legal subdivision 11 and all legal subdivision 14 of section 27, and the south half of legal subdivision 3 of section 34); sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, south half and northwest quarter 10, and sections 17 and
18,	township 3, range 17, and township 3, range 18 (except section 8 and the south half and northwest quarter of section 26), all west 4th meridian, containing an area of 50,612 acres. This ranch was granted under the present regulations, which provide that the lands covered are not open to homestead entry or sale, but the lease may be cancelled on giving the lessee two vears' notice. The lease is for 21 years from the 1st December, 1907.


MARKHAM PUBLIC BUILDING.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. WALLACE-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Is the post office at Markham finished?
! If so, what is the total cost and what was ; the first estimate?
! Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of ; Public Works):
!	1. No.
2.	Total cost to March 31, 1909, $9,690.52, which includes site, legal services and survey.
3.	$14,000, which does not include site.
.	MR. MACKENZIE KING.
' Mr. SCHAFFNER asked:
,	1. As far as government business was con-
' cerned, for what purpose was Mr. W. L. Mackenzie King absent from Canada?
-	2. How long was he absent?
r 3. Did the government pay the expenses of >
Mr. King during the whole time of his abS sence ?
2	4. What was the total amount paid by gov-
1 ernment to Mr. King?
Right Hon.   S@: L To represent Canada on the International Opium Commission at Shanghai, China, and to confer with the authorities in England, India, and China, on the subject of immigration from the orient to Canada.
2.	Four and one-half months.
3.	Yes.
4.	$2,900 to himself personally-exclusive of his secretary's expenses.


TELEPHONE TO MANITOULIN ISLAND.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMYTH-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	Have any representations been made to the government as to the necessity for laying a telephone or telegraph cable from a point on Coburn island to a point on Manitoulin island, to connect with the existing line connecting Manitoulin island with the mainland?
2.	If so, when and by whom were such representations made to the government?
3.	Has the government, pursuant to any such representations or otherwise, decided to provide the establishment of such communication between Coburn island and Manitoulin island? If so, what steps are being taken preparatory to the commencing of the work?
4.	Are any negotiations being made with respect to the proposed work, and to ascertain the probable cost? If so, when, bv whom, and with what result?
5. Is it the intention of the government to establish such communication at an early date ?	J
Hon. WILLIAM PUG8LEY (Minister of I ublic works). No representations have yet been made to the Department of Pub-he Works respecting telephone or telegraph connection for Coburn Island

[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMYTH-by Mr. Blain-asked:
. h -i® R i-h0 intention of the government to issue pound net fishing licenses to Wikwini-kong Indian reserve, at the east end of Manitoulin island, in the Georgian bay?
H so, will the fishing grounds around Club and Lonely islands, and from Owen island and Hungerford point, at the east end of the Manitoulin island, be open for the granting of such licenses?
3- What, if any, representations have been made to the government as to the advisability of issuing licenses at this portion of the reserve ?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior) :: 1.	The issuing of fishery licenses is not under the control of the Department of Indian Affairs.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: 


ISLANDS AT RUTHERFORD BAY.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMYTH-by Mr. Blain-asked:
L Has the dispute as to the ownership of the islands west of the eastern boundary of Rutherford township, province of Ontario, produced up to the western boundary of Thes-salon, been disposed of?
2.	If so, which government has jurisdiction?
3.	Has the government given permission to any one to cut timber on any of these islands ?
4.	If so, on which island, to whom has permission been given, under what condition as to payment, and the time given for the removal of such timber?
Hon. FRANK OLIVER (Minister of the Interior):: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.


HONORA DOCK, MANITOULIN.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. SMYTH-by Mr. Blain-asked:
1.	When was Honora dock, Manitoulin island, constructed, what were the dimensions of it as originally constructed, and has there been any subsequent expenditure upon the dock to widen it so that teams may drive around the storehouse erected thereon?
2.	What amount, if any, was spent upon this wharf during the season of 1908, when did the work commence, when did it cease, who was the inspector, how much was he paid, and what were the dates of payment?
3.	What were the yearly receipts during the existence of the dock, reported by the wharfinger, and what was the tonnage yearly landed at the dock?
Hon. WILLIAM PUGSLEY (Minister of Public Works):: 1.	(a) In 1904.	(b) Shore approach, 175
feet long, 20 feet wide on top; woodwork, 280 feet long and consisting of 7 cribs, 20 feet by 20 feet, with spaces 20 feet between each crib and an outer block, 40 feet by 20 feet, having 23 feet and 3 inches of water at low water and standing 6 feet above said low water, (c) Yes.
2.	(a) Amount expended, $2,591.98.	(b)
Work commenced 16th September and ceased 31st December. (c) Conductor, James Stringer; salary, $3 per day; total paid him, $225; dates of payment, 2nd November, 1908, 30th December, 1908, and 13th January, 1909.
3.	The third question will have to stand to be answered by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


RURAL FREE MAIL DELIVERY.
Mr. ARMSTRONG asked:: How many rural free mail delivery routes on which mail was delivered to patrons of said routes were in operation on May 1, 1909?


Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General).: 
Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That does not say how many routes are in operation.



QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.

Mr. R. BLAIN (Peel).: I rise to a question of privilege. In the Ottawa ' Free Press ' of Wednesday, May 12, the following article appeared:



CHIEF TORY WHIP MUST BE WRONG.

[Stage Direction]
W. S. Calvert explains arrangement of speakers on Pugsley Debate.
A letter written by Mr. George Taylor, chief Conservative whip, to his leader, Mr. R.	L. Borden, declaring a statement in the ' Free Press ' regarding the snap vote taken on the Pugsley debate to be incorrect, does not agree with the facts as related by Mr. W.
S.	Calvert, chief whip of the government party.
The ' Free Press ' had stated that the small Liberal majority of 27 at the end of the Pugsley controversy was due to the fact that the Conservatives had broken faith and brought on the division before the three speakers on each side, agreed upon by the whips, were heard.
Mr. Taylor denies that any agreement was made between the whips.
' If Mr. Taylor says this arrangement was not made by the whips/ said Mr. Calvert, today, ' he must not understand the circumstances. His assistant whip, Mr. R. Blain, made the arrangement. He wanted to put on five more speakers, Foster, Borden, Doherty, Middlebro and Daniels. I suggested to cut them down to three and he promised to do so. He was to drop Middlebro and Daniels, hut the understanding was clear between us that the three others were to speak. Naturally, then, when our members asked me if there would be a vote before 8 o'clock, I said ' No.' If Mr. Taylor says there was no such arrangement he does not understand what was done by his assistant.'
I notified the chief whip of the government side and also the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee) that I would bring this matter up this morning. My first connection with it was in the western corridor while my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) was presenting his case in the House. The chief whip of the government side (Mr. Calvert) spoke to me about having the debate closed as quickly as possible. We talked over who were to be the speakers on either side, and I suggested to my hon. friend Mr. Calvert) that he would speak io the government and ask them to consent
to the debate being adjourned by the hon, member for York (Mr. Crocket) who had the floor. The chief whip spoke to the right hon. gentleman and he came back with the reply that he would not consent. I immediately returned to my seat in the House, and in a very few minutes the right hon. the Prime Minister sent a note to my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition, saying he would consent to the member for York moving the adjournment of the debate, which was done. On the following day, when the debate was resumed by my hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket), I had a conversation with the assistant whip,, the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Pardee), in the corridor, and we mentioned the names of those who were to take part ini the debate. We both agreed to endeavour to cut off two speakers on each side. I took the names down of four speakers-the two mentioned by my hon. friend from West Lambton and the two mentioned by myself. I came to my place in the House and wrote down on an envelope the names of the four speakers and sent them to the chief opposition whip who looked at it and consented, he then handed it to the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who consented also. That was the final agreement between my hon. friend the as-sistent whip and myself, as I am sure the hon. gentleman will admit.	The
article says that some agreement was made by himself as assistant whip which my hon. friend the chief whip of the opposition (Mr. Taylor), knew nothing about. May I say that the agreement was carried out in so far as the opposition was concerned. There was no arrangement whatever as to the rotation of speakers. When an agreement is reached between the two sides as to the rotation of speakers, the list is given to the government whip, who takes it to the Speaker, and the Speaker records the rotation on his list, and each speaker is called accordingly. No such arrangement was suggested by the chief whip or his assistant' to myself; and in so far as I am concerned, no arrangement was come to other than the one I stated.
As to this being a snap verdict, no such thing was thought of by the leader of the opposition or by any member on this side. I am aware that the chief whip of the opposition said to the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Haggart), ten minutes before the vote, that he could go as there would be no vote until afteT six o'clock. Immediately the hon. gentleman left the House and two or three others on this side left under the same instructions. I am in the hearing of my hon. leader and other gentlemen on this side when I say there was no intrigue or any suggestion whatever from our side with regard to a snap vote; and in so far ' as I am concerned, whatever agreement was made was carried out. Any agreement since
[Stage Direction]
I have had the honour of a seat in this House which I have ever made, with the whip on the other side has been fulfilled to the letter. As evidence of that, I might mention that there never has been any controversy between us, and never until this time any reference in the press to any breach of agreement. It is only fair that I should make this statement. The reason why the debate dropped Vas in my opinion because neither party seemed to have any special desire to continue it. Had there been any agreement by which one speaker would speak on our side and then another on the government side and we had taken any advantage of that, I would have been guilty and so would hon. members on this side, but the gentlemen who intended to continue the debate on the government side were all in their seats when the debate ceased and I myself saw the right hon. the Prime Minister rise partially in his place and look around, first at the Speaker and then at the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell) who was expected to take part in the debate. The Speaker rose, read the resolution, and the resolution was put to the vote. I think it is not only fair to myself but to the members of the opposition that I should make this statement. I wish to repeat that any agreement I have ever had with the whips on the other side has been fulfilled to the letter. I think this is in the interest of the dignity of the House that one side should keep faith with the other and respect agreements.

Mr. KNOWLES.: I wish to draw the attention of the government to the very serious prairie fires which have occurred in the far west, and which have caused the loss of several lives and the homes and property of many of our new settlers. Have any steps been taken to relieve this distress?


Frank Oliver: The department at once telegraphed to the Commissioner of Immigration in Winnipeg and authority was given him to take whatever measures might be necessary and practicable to relieve the immediate distress.



FISHERY COMMISSION REGULATION.

Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries if the Fisheries Commission has adopted a set of regulations in connection with the international fisheries on the great lakes, and if so when they will be laid on the table. I understand also that those regulations are final and the duties of the commissioners at an end.


Richard Blain: 


Hon. L. P. BRODEUR (Minister of Marine and Fisheries).: The negotiations between Professor Prince and Dr. Jordan are not yet completed. Some regulations have been drafted but they are not yet signed.
I understand they are going to have very shortly a meeting to close definitely those negotiations. As- soon as' the regulations are signed they will be laid on the table. r



GRAND TRUNK HOTEL SITE, OTTAWA.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Has anything been done in connection with the transfer to the Grand Trunk Railway of a portion of Major's Hill Park or does the matter stand in the same position as when I made inquiries some weeks earlier?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Nothing has been done since. Matters are in the same position.



TRENT VALLEY CANAL.

Robert Laird Borden: As the Minister of Railways is not here, would the right hon. gentleman remind him not to forget to bring down certain particulars in connection with the Trent Valley Canal which I asked for some days ago-particulars of changes made.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Mr. LENNOX.: I wish to again urge the bringing down of the balance of the papers in connection with the railway return as ordered on the 31st of March. A week ago an officer of the Board of Commissioners told me the papers were about ready. I particularly want to use them, and I hope they will be brought down at once.


Mr. FOSTER.: I would like also that a note be taken with reference to a return brought down in answer to a resolution of parliament in connection with the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners. All the schedules of the return were complied with the exception of one, and that one the commission stated could be provided in about three weeks. That time is up, and the return is comparatively useless to me without that schedule. I would like to have the commission asked to bring that down



PRIVILEGE-THE VOTE ON THE NEW BRUNSWICK CENTRAL RAILWAY MATTER.

Mr. W. S. CALVERT (Middlesex West).: 1 regret very much I was not in the House when my hon. friend brought up the question-


Mr. SPEAKER.: The hon. gentleman cannot discuss that unless he rises to a question of privilege himself.


William Samuel Calvert: Well, I rise to a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I regret I was not in the House when my -hon. friend from Peel brought up a question in regard to the vote taken the other day. I was engaged in the Railway Committee and we have only finished our labours a few moments ago so that I could not be present -when my hon. friend spoke. I was very much surprised to find a letter in the papers from my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor), the chief whip of the opposition, in regard to why the debate was not continued. The chief whip of the opposition was not present the night before the vote was taken, and consequently I made the arrangement with his assistant, the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Rlain). I do not think my hon. friend says that my statement was wrong with regard to the names he gave me of those he expected to take part in the debate. When we make arrangements of that kind it is not always customary to say that such and such a member shall speak and then such and such a member shall follow him. But it is the custom of this House that when arrangements are made that a certain number of members shall speak on each side of the House, that the members on each side should alternate in the debate. During the debate the other day I showed the member for Peel the names of the members that we expected on this side to take part in the debate, and they were largely the members from New Brunswick. There was no hesitancy at all about showing him the names. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) informed me that five members on the opposition side intended to speak, and consequently, just as I said to the ' Free Press, the debate was to be continued as we expected, and the question was whether we were going to be able to conclude the debate on the following day in a reasonable time. So I asked my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) to try and reduce the number of speakers on his side, stating that I would do the same, and that we would have at least three members to speak on each side of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: Did my hon. friend give the names?


William Samuel Calvert: I gave the names to my hon. friend the member for Peel.


Robert Laird Borden: Was the name of the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Tur-geon) given?


William Samuel Calvert: Yes, I have the card in my desk now in the whips' room. I can show it to you, and I can show it _ to my hon. friend from Peel, and it contains the names of Mr. Turgeon, Mr. Nesbitt, Air. Todd, Mr. Carvell and Dr. McAllister. I said that while perhaps not all of these would speak I expected that most of them would. I put their names on the very
envelope that I showed to my hon. friend and I have the names of the Conservative members on one side and the Liberal members on the other. When I was asked by many of my friends if the vote would take place before eight o'clock, I said no, that it would be impossible. I accepted that as the statement of my hon. friend as to the arrangement of the debate, and I expected that it would be continued from one side to the other as has been usual for many years. Consequently when the debate came to an end I was very much surprised, just as other members of the House were. I am quite sure there was nothing wrong so far as we were concerned, nor do I know that the assistant whip intended to take any advantage, because it may have been an accident that a member from the opposition side did not rise. At the same time it was understood and expected that the debate would be -continued and that the leader of the opposition, the member for Toronto (Mr. Foster) and the hon. member (Mr. Doherty) would speak on the opposition side. I was very sorry I did not hear what my hon. friend had to say, but I know that we were endeavouring to -carry out the arangement in good faith, and I would like it to be understood that there was nothing done by this side of the House that was not done in good faith. Neither do I suppose that there was any intention on the other side not to carry out the arangement in good faith, and consequently if thp debate had been carried on as has been customary it would have continued until the middle of the night.


Robert Laird Borden: It would be far better if matters of this kind were brought up and dealt with in the House in the first instance. I may say that so far as I am concerned I absolutely heard of no agreement whatever that we would be responsible for continuing the debate until any particular time. The only negotiation I had on the subject was with the Prime Minister, who expressed to me the hope that the debate would be concluded on Thursday. That is the only expression or desire that I heard from him and so far as the continuance to a particular hour is concerned my hon. friend will recollect that it was perfectly open to any gentleman on the other side to have continued that debate and to have seen to it that it did not come to a vote before eight o'clock. We accept absolutely no responsibility.


William Samuel Calvert: We intended to close the debate on Thursday, but we found that, with the number of gentlemen who intended to -speak, it would be almost impossible to do so, and then we wished some arrangement whereby we could reduce the number of speakers and that is what we were endeavouring to do.


Robert Laird Borden: The whole question was a question of reducing the number of hon. gentlemen who would speak and of limiting the time, so far as I know.



GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.

John Allister Currie: Before the Orders of the Day are called I wish to ask the leader of the government if there has come to his- cognizance a petition or round robin that is being circulated by lobbyists in the corridors of the House asking the signatures of members to support a guarantee of this country to an expenditure with respect to the Georgian Bay canal? Would the Prime Minister state the intention of the government as to putting through a measure before the end of the session, with a view to the people of this country guaranteeing an expenditure of three million dollars in reference to that matter.


Wilfrid Laurier: I may say to my hon. friend that this is the first intimation I have had of the existence of such a document, and so far as concerns important measures to be brought down by the government everything is on the table to-day.



THE OLD FORT TORONTO.

George Eulas Foster: There is an old question winch I asked some time ago and the Minister of Militia was kind enough to say he would answer it. It is with reference to the Old Fort property in the city of Toronto.
I would like to get from him a statement as to the condition of that property, as to whether a deed has been given to the city, and as to what are the conditions of the deed, especially in reference to restrictions upon the use of these grounds for street railway purposes or any other than park purposes.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: It is quite true that my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) spoke to me about this matter as long ago as the 14th of April. Unfortunately, I was ill and, for several days, was not in the House, and since that time no opportunity,
I believe, has offered for a statement. All the papers in regard to this matter, covering the negotiations which rook place between the city of Toronto and the Militia Department and the government, were laid on the table of the House two or three years ago. There is really nothing new in the matter since that time, except that a rumor has been current-in fact, I think it was a matter of public discussion in the city of Toronto-that it was proposed to allow the street railway to pass through the old fort to the exhibition grounds. That question having come to the front, and opposition having been made to it-that is, as to the street railway passing through- Mr. CALVERT.
by certain societies, historical societies, and others, the matter has been discussed and there has been a good deal of correspondence. The situation at the present moment is this: Letters patent by the Department of the Interior, from whom the title proceeds, are now being prepared which will contain the following clause:
To have and to hold the same

That is the property to be conveyed, including all the property, some two hundred acres, of which, of course, the old fort is only a small portion. This, it will be understood, is to convey the garrison common property to the city of Toronto, one of the conditions being:
To have and to hold the same unto the said the corporation of the city of Toronto, its successors and assigns, so long as the same are, and upon, and subject to the trust and conditions, that the same shall be subject to the proviso hereinafter expressed and contained, that the site of the old fort, situated within the limits of the land hereby conveyed shall, as far as possible, be restored to its original condition as shown on the attached copy

Which is made a part of the conveyance.
-of a plan of the old fort prepared by G. Nichols, government engineer, and dated, Quebec, 24th June, 1816, and that the same shall be preserved and maintained in such condition for ever.
So far as the proposal to run a line of street cars is concerned, I may say that there is an old road, a road which has always existed, I believe, running through the old fort property, and the city of Toronto authorities desired that the line of street railway shall pass along that old road through the old fort to the exhibition grounds. Now, recently the mayor of the city waited upon me and told me that he believed an alternative route had been discovered by the use of which, it would be unnecessary to carry the line of street railway or any portion of it through the old fort. He could not speak positively, but he hoped such would be the case. I have not thought it necessary to include in the deed any prohibition against putting the railway through the old fort, because I think it is quite safe to leave in the hands of the city of Toronto, whose people are more interested than anybody else, the question as to whether that street Tailway line shall pass through on this road, or whether they shall find some other route. I am quite sure that the intention and desire is to get to the exhibition property without trespassing in any way on the old fort. In any case, the plan of the proposed restoration of the fort and everything that is to be done with reference to the property will be filed with the government before any action can be taken by the city.



SUPPLY-FULL PARTNERSHIP UNION BETWEEN GREAT BRITAIN AND HER COLONIES.

['If the views of Prof. Prince as stated before the committee as to the preservation of the fish on the great lakes be carried out well and good, but if the proposed regulations will give the Americans reciprocal fishing rights all over the Canadian shore it will be a serious matter for the Canadian fishermen, and I do not think the minister himself would endorse it. Then, in the matter of including the north channel of the Georgian Bay as a portion of the International waters, immediately that was done the United States government threw open Lake Michigan to Canadian trade, which it had hitherto regarded as closed, for fear we would take stronger ground and close up the north shore fisheries from any possible interference on their part. The fishery question is undoubtedly of international importance, but for years we in Canada have been proceeding along well-defined lines for the protection of our fish, and now we have lots of fish and well protected fisheries and the Americans have no fish at all. It is believedJjy every one connected with the fisheries on the great lakes that the Americans wish to have international regulations now so as to endeavour, if possible, to share in our fish. We had regulations in Canada as to the size of the mesh and in the close season and other matters and we were carrying out our own views in that regard with satisfaction to ourselves and benefit to the country. In view of all this I fail to see any great necessity for the treaty, or for the regulations under it, and the minister will hardly deny that we will just be as well off if the commissioners arrive at no conclusion as if they do.']
Right Hon.   S@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.


Mr.   SAM@: HUGHES (Victoria and Hali-burton) moved in amendment:
That in the opinion of this House the best interest of Canada, as well as of each component part of the British empire, would be served bv a full partnership union of Great Britain and Ireland and the colonies of Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and India; wherein, each retaining under its own control all matters specially concerning it, all would unite on an equable and independent footing, in a full partnership union government, dealing only with intraimperial, international, imperial fiscal and imperial defence questions.
He said:	Mr. Speaker:	In again presenting my old favourite motion for full partnership union between Great Britain and her colonies, I may say at the outset that I am-shall I -say very agreeably surprised-at all events, I am pleased, at the progress that has been made in the spirit of the people of Canada in relation to this issue during the past year. It is now two years since I had the honour of last presenting it to the House. On that occasion there was not very much enthusiasm for it, either in the House, or, I regret still more to say, in the country. However, even then the progress that had been made over former efforts was very gratifying, because, on former occasions, it was received absolutely with a wet blanket. I may explain that it is not my purpose, on this occasion, to divide the House. I do not wish, in any sense, to make this a party issue; I do not wish, in any sense, to place the government-this motion being one on going into Committee of Supply -in a position which would afford any excuse to any hon. member of this House for expressing by a vote any other than his own sentiments on this question. Therefore, my object being purely educational, purely academic so to speak, I have no intention of dividing the House on this issue. And I trust the day will never come when 'it will be necesary to divide the House on this question, but that in the very near future the members of both sides can join hands in loyally supporting this proposition. In answer to certain gentlemen, negative characters, such as are found in all communities, who look upon any agitation of this kind as a jingoistic or militarist agitation, I may say that my object in seeking this union is the maintenance of peace the wide world over. A distinguished German officer, not long since, pointed out that the peace of Europe has been preserved for more than a quarter of a century by the maintenance of an immense standing army in Germany. And one of the most distinguished German soldiers recently published an article which has attracted world-wide attention, an article of such importance that the Emperor William summoned his leading officers to meet him on New Year's day last, and himself read this article to them. One sentence in that article, I will read so that hon. members may see that the best guarantee for peace is to be ready for war. This officer, Count Von Schleifen, one of the most distinguished officers of the German army, says:
Men warm and secure behind the walls of fortresses deemed impregnable are showing less and less desire to go out into the open and bare their breasts to the fight. Gun foundries, ammunition factories and steam hammers have done more to promote friendly relations and amicable concessions than any peace congress.
These are the views expressed by the Emperor of Germany, and they are views endorsed bv the best men of Europe and America to-day. Therefore, I need offer no apology for bringing this matter before the parliament of Canada. It is true I have received numerous communications and personal solicitations from a great many gentlemen throughout Canada to be careful of the ground I proceed on. Sir, I received the same warning long years ago when I was advocating colonial assistance in the wars of the Motherland, but I persevered. The politician in any land under responsible government is always cautious, and rightly or wrongly I feel, and I say it with all kindness, that I should pay very little attention to -the expressed opinions of the politicans of a country when they are not backed up by the voice of the people. The politician as a rule is just feeling the pulse of the people, and until" he feels that a movement has taken hold in their hearts he is cautious. I was warned, as the First Minister knows, and as my then leader, Sir Charles Tupper, knows, that in my movement for colonial assistance in the motherland wars I stood alone. But, Sir, when the issue rose it was found that it was these gentlemen and not I who stood alone. I have been told also that these great changes in the upbuilding of a country come by chance or just as the occasion demands. Sir, there never has been a single change in the upbuilding of liberty in any land that ever came by chance. It has come after years and years of agitation, years upon years of education, and in very many instances after years and years of stem fighting. Therefore I maintain in the first place, that no harm can come of discussions of

this kind, and in the second place, that the only way to arrive at a proper conclusion is by open and free discussion, and by eliminating what it is not necessary to have engrafted in any movement that may be for the well-being and. uplifting of a great nation, and of a free people.
Above all I am warned in this great country of Canada not to bring this motion forward for fear my French Canadian country men will be offended and will oppose it.


Mr. TALBOT.: Where did you hear that?


Mr. HUGHES.: Not from my hon. friend opposite. I am proud to say that the first man on record in favour of a partnership union between Great Britain and her colonies was the French Canadian who spoke as I quoted two years ago, and Sir, my experience up and down the country is that the gentlemen who warned me to be aware of offending my French Canadian fellow-countrymen do not know whereof they speak because on every hand I find the French Canadians, once they understand the matter, heartily and openly endorsing it. I have the honour, just as much as any man ir. this House, to class myself as French Canadian.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I am proud to state to this House that French blood, just as good-just as good possibly as that which circulates in the veins of any gentleman in this House or in this country-flows in my veins.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I know the aspirations of the French people. They have from time immemorial stood for the principles of liberty, equality, and fraternity.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: Their very name of 'French' derived from the old 'Frank' race, is synonymous for free. If you take the history of that great people in Europe you will find that no race the world over has produced so many noble spirits for liberty. And when I refer to the French in Europe, I include the French race in Britain, in Canada and in South Africa, where they have at various periods in the world's history exercised great influence. As Goldsmith, long years ago, speaking of the French people, said:
Theirs are those arts that mind to mind endear
For honour forms the social temper here.
What the French people need is not to be mistrusted; what the French people need is to have the facts placed before them. They have brains, they have genius, they have


Samuel Hughes: intelligence, and what they want is facts. Let me point out in all kindness that the mistake that is being made by both parties in the Dominion of Canada in dealing with our French Canadian fellow-countrymen, is, that they have not understood the French Canadian people of the Dominion ; in other words that they have underestimated the intelligence of the people, and too often have been prone to pander to their prejudices when they should have appealed tc their intelligence. Both parties are blameable for that. Were it necessary I might point to the struggles that have been made for liberty by the men of French extraction. I might mention Count Raymond of Toulouse, who, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, fought as few men have fought for the liberty of the people.


Wilfrid Laurier: What name did you mention?


Samuel Hughes: I referred to the leader of the Albigensian struggle for liberty. Then, Henry IY of Navarre stands on the roll as foremost in the struggle for liberty; Samuel de Champlain, whom the people of Canada honoured last year as the founder of the old city of Quebec, for a quarter of a century before coming to the continent of North America, fought for the liberty of the French people; and I might mention the names of Coligny. Colbert, Peter Waldeau, Thiers, Lamartine, Rousseau, and thousands more. The pages of French history are filled with the efforts of those noble fellows to secure liberty. And in Canada we have men of that race who have been a credit to the country:	Lafontaine, Chapleau, Cartier,
Dorion in past days, and coming to the present time I am sure the House will agree with me that in the persons of the member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) and of the right hon. the leader of the government, the French race is adorned in the most fitting manner. Therefore, sir, I say that no apology need be made to the people of French extraction when I introduce this motion. To the people of the province of Quebec is it not as vital a point that the body of water lying between Great Britain and the coast of the continent should remain the North Sea rather than the German ocean, as it is to the people of England? Would not the harbour of Quebec be the port whence would sail the merchant ships of the world bearing the produce in and out of this great country?
Would not the shores of the St. Lawrence be the spot where we would place our dry docks and establish our arsenals for the manufacture of war material, because if we are to remain a nation and become a great people, we must, whether we remain as we are, a part of the British empire, or become an independent coun-

try, take our part with the other nations of the world. Along the shores of these waters would be the place where these industries would spring up and in that regard, more than in any other part of Canada, the province of Quebec would be benefited. Able men of that race, speaking the two languages, would undoubtedly be called upon, more than in any other part of Canada, to take their share in the field of diplomacy. From whatever view point we may take it, the people of Quebec are those who would be benefited to the greatest extent by a full partnership union between Great Britain and her colonies and, therefore, I have no apology to offer and I have no fear of offending any one in bringing in this motion. My policy, as I said, is one of education. In the year 1835 there was an interview published in the Detroit Evening ' News.' I do not wish to recall any dead issues or ghosts of the past to the leader of the government, but I have no doubt he will remember that a certain party in this country was entrapped into endorsing a policy of a full partnership union with the United States, unrestricted reciprocity, or commercial union, call it what name you will. At that time the Detroit Evening ' News ' sent its correspondent to interview various people here and there in the Dominion of Canada. Upon that occasion I combatted the idea of a full partnership union between Canada and the United States in matters of trade, and I upheld as the only solution of the question as to how to promote peace and civilization the wide world over was by the union of Great Britain and her colonies in a great full partnership first and, after that, the formation of an offensive and defensive alliance with the United States. That was back in 1885. During the following year the matter came to the attention of the Eight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain. He endorsed the principle but his idea was that there should be absolute free trade between the component parts of the empire. However, I may say that the Eight Hon. Joseph Chamberlain very quickly got over the idea that it was necessary to have free trade between the component parts of the empire, and he saw in due time the reasonableness of each component part reserving its own tariff with a preferential duty against the world. There is a little matter to which I propose referring. It is in connection with colonial assistance in imperial wars. That agitation had been carried on, Sir, for many, many years by your humble servant. At first it was received with coldness, but, as I said before, I did not allow myself to be influenced by opinions expressed in the parliament of Canada or by the encouragement I received by members on either side of the House. I took the heart of the nation into my
confidence, those were the ones to whom I appealed and I was satisfied to leave it to them to say whether I was right or not. Whether or not I am right in the hearts of the members of this parliament I am certainly right in tne hearts of the people. It was my privilege to visit Great Britain in connection with colonial assistance in imperial waTS, and I also had the privilege of visiting the colonies of Australia and New Zealand in 1897 and 1898. When war broke out it was found that the identical plan' which had been laid down was the plan which was adopted, and despite the cold water which at that time was thrown upon the movement by politicians and even by high military men in Canada the whole heart of the nation was educated up to the issue and joined heartily in the movement. I have some extracts here from a statement published in the papers, of a distinguished English gentleman. I do not know who he is. He has evidently come here with a gold brick in his pocket in connection with the Georgian Bay canal, he lias found out what the view of the right hon. First Minister is in the matter and he forthwith comes out and dictates to the people of Canada what their duty should be in the premises in relation to a Dreadnought and other matters, winding up, however, with the gold brick statement that half the money that we might put into Dreadnoughts would build the Georgian bay canal. I am not going into a discussion at the present time of the Georgian Bay canal scheme, but I would say that in all lands there is this negative class of men who have very little influence in public sentiment, who do not appreciate the upbuilding of the country and whose very wealth has been obtained in the past for them or their ancestors by the policy which they are. condemning in the people of Great Britain.	They call those who advocate
the holding together of the empire, jingoes. Where would we have been to-day if it had not been for the so-called jingoes in Great Britain? Free institutions and religious liberty would never have been brought about in Britain without the jingoes. Who is the man, that, in the history of the world, has resisted tyranny, injustice, aggression and opposition? He is the man who has fought for the liberty of the people of the land? He is the man who has always stood ready to fight for higher civilization, and for the security of person, property and home. He is the man who has brought about the higher moral and physical upbuilding of the nation, he is the man who has aspired to have a nation of ready free men instead of a lot of peace-at-any-price dreamers and he is the man who has been ready to hold on to the empire and at less cost than under any other system which could be evolved. He is

the man who has spread the trade of Britain to all winds and all seas the wide world over, and he is the man who has established the factories of Great Britain. These dreamers, these peace at-any-price gentlemen, these men who are ready to call those who have striven for the* upbuilding of the British people, jingoes, have profited by proceeding along the lines of least resistance, and when others were fighting the battles of the nation these gentlemen have been making money out of contracts and side shows in connection with these developments. Yet, these are the men who are to-day calling others jingoes. The whole matter is summed up in a nutshell in regard to that class of men in these words from one of England's poets:
Never trust the soft breathing that preaches of peace,
With an oath-giving lip and a smile lighted eye;
Hear it all with good will, hut he provident still
With men that are earnest and powder that's dry.
That applies to these gentlemen of the dreamer class the wide world over. We are also called militarists. My hon. friend the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) and hon. gentlemen on this side of the House who advocate the adoption of proper methods for the nation's upbuilding and for the improvement of the militia of the country are by some gentlemen whom I will not refer to, some negative characters, described as militarists. I have on several occasions asked this class of fellow to spell the word, and I rarely got one who has brains enough to spell it, to say nothing of intelligence enough to know what he is talking about. We have in Canada no such thing and there is no such thing in Great Britain as militarism. The day may have been when something of that kind might have been charged against some of the people in Great Britain. Militarism means the establishment of a separate caste or class who are independent of the popular government and of the people. That class can make or unmake governments and can grind the people down. But they have no such thing as that in Great Britain for many long years. The time was when it was tried, but I will refer to that a little later on. However, as far as I am concerned, as I have been charged with being a militarist, by these gentlemen let me point out what my record has been. It is known to many in the House that long years ago when the Conservative party was in power we had as we have to-day in connection with the permanent corps a lot of very estimable young gentlemen who filled positions in the various offices throughout the country. But they were not selected for their superior qualities (for their qualities were not super-Mr HUGHES.
ior to tens of thousands of men in the ordinary active militia) and let me tell the Minister of Militia that the same holds good to-day in the permanent corps. They are good fellows but they are not-I will not say they are inferior-but they are far from being superior to tens of thousands of men in the active militia. An effort was made then by regulations and orders to make these gentlemen superior to the active militia, but I led a struggle which placed them on an equal footing, and we are going to have popular military government in Canada if I can bring it about.


Frederick William Borden: As to the appreciation of the active militia, might I point out to the hon. gentleman that it is quite evident we do appreciate it when we took a colonel from the active militia the other day and placed him in charge of a district.


Samuel Hughes: Which shows that the minister is moving along the right _lines._ I do not claim the credit for teaching him, but I do say that his mind is running in the right direction. Let me call attention to the fact that a number of years ago when the cost of the dress of the officers of the active .militia was prohibitive, I took the matter up. Before a man could attend a military school in those days he had to have a full dress uniform, a mess uniform, and a couple of suits of drili uniform, and as most of these young men were mechanics and clerks and farmers and young professional men, they could not afford any such useless extravagance. I had the honour of standing in my place in this House 18 or 19 years ago and fighting that issue to a finish and of bringing about changes in the position of the young men in that respect. The minister knows that since he has been in office and since I have been in parliament, aye and before that too, I have fought to have the training of the officers and soldiers changed so that when men go to these educational military schools they should go, not on the basis of militarism, not on the basis of social or military rank, but on the basis of educational fitness, and that there should be no bar to a yertng man, be he a private or an officer of the militia, in obtaining a certificate which would entitle him to command a regiment. As it is now, a private can only take out a certain grade certificate, a sergeant takes out only a certain grade certificate and so on, and you are building up a class in the militia which I have always condemned and which I trust the minister will see his way clear to abolish at a very early date, and let them all go in on an educational basis. If a farmer's son, who happens to be a private, has superior knowledge, let him take his certifi-

cate over the gentleman, who happens to be a barrister, or anybody else. In that way we can open up a career to our young men in the militia and give them a chance to take high command. In my younger days many of us shouldered our rifles as privates when we had higher certificates in our pockets than the colonel wTho commanded the regiment. It is a splendid discipline for a man holding the commission of an officer to get experience in the ranks. The Minister of Militia will remember that when he was passing his Militia Bill a few years ago I fought the clauses of that Bill, step by step, in the interests of the free men of this country, bo as to prevent any outside influence being exercised by an officer in his military capacity over any one of his men when they were off duty. And, the law to-day stands, as the minister was good enough to testify, as it is, largely because of the action I took on that occasion. I have always been favourable to drill in the schools as opposed to conscription. I believe that the youngsters in our schools from 12 years upwards should be drilled, and then when they are young men we would have an army from one end of the country to the other, much better fitted to take the field than our volunteers are to-day after only three years' training. It was my privilege long years ago to fight for the liberty of the soldier ir. camD and barracks. I objected to the petty restrictive disabilities that were placed upon him, and I carried out my principles in 1886, the first year I had the honour of being brigade major in Kingston. I am pleased to see by the English papers that General Smith-Dorien has now carried out the same policy as was then inaugurated, and the English camps today are no longer hampered with soldiers standing sentry over every man.
I do not think I need enter into the details of my difficulty with General Hutton further than to say that they were one and all in the interest of freedom. The first minister may or may not remember that upon one occasion when General Hutton had undertaken to receive and transmit commands from His Excellency the Governor General of Canada to members of the active militia without consulting either the First Minister of Canada, or the Secretary of State, or the Minister of Militia, I had the honour of fighting the matter out and of convincing the first minister. I came to Ottawa, got the data in the library, showed the right hon. gentleman where, at a time when General Dundas was commander-in-chief in Britain and Lord Palmerston, Secretary of War, Lord Palmerston objected to Dundas taking the same action as was taken here by General Hutton, and I showed that Dundas had been brought before the Secretary of War and told he dared not officially lift his hat
to the Sovereign without the permission of the responsible minister under a responsible government.
There is a little matter of history in connection with this question of colonial assistance and the South African war which I wish to place upon the pages of ' Hansard ' in justice to myself. I find that about the surest way and possibly the only way one can get justice in this world is to look after it himself. In the year 1896 when I was proposing that the colonies should stand by the motherland it was then known that Germany, Russia, and France were intriguing against Great Britain. They were intriguing before 1896 but it was known publicly in 1896 that these three nations were conspiring to clip the wings of Britain and drive her off the seas. I had the honour then, Sir, of pointing out to my leader, and of speaking in this House on the subject that the colonies should be ready to stand by the motherland in war. My then leader, Sir Charles Tupper, as he had done publicly in England on a previous occasion, stated that Canada must never embroil herself in Britain's wars and that my proposition was monstrous. I told him I would still persevere in educating him, and in 1899 1 had him educated. The first minister will remember that in 1899 when the South African war was looming up I came from the Northwest down here to interview him and to urge upon the government the advisability of sending a contingent. Possibly I was a little urgent in my demand, but the first minister will remember-I would not refer to it now only he afterwards made the statement publicly that not a man and not a gun would go to South Africa.


Wilfrid Laurier: When did I say that?


Samuel Hughes: I understand that the first minister said it publicly.


Wilfrid Laurier: Never.


Samuel Hughes: Well, the first minister practically said the same thing personally.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no.


Samuel Hughes: I will give an instance. I had been urging that a contingent should be sent, and the First Minister pointed out very many objections to it. It was known that General Hutton, Commander in Chief in Canada, had notified the imperial government-not through his own minister, which would have been the constitutional course-but in an indirect way that Canadian volunteers would be a menace-those were the words he used-to the imperial soldiers in war, short of three years ir, training, and then would be useless unless led by imperial officers. He also said that

the permanent corps of Canada would be useless in a war except possibly to guard base points and handle provisions on the line. He also notified the imperial authorities that two of the most prominent officers in Canada had informed him that not 25 men could be got in the Dominion to go to South Africa. The government are also aware of the boast Gen. Hutton made that he had defeated one government -the government of New South Wales- and that if these gentlemen in Canada undertook to cross him, he would defeat them also. These things were virtually known at the time, and I do not so much blame the Prime Minister, more especially when, in a subsequent interview, he told me that my party was not behind me. It is true, my party was not behind me, but neither was his own behind me. He pointed out that in all my educative efforts in this line, I had failed to get any one to second my resolution. That was all proper and true. He also pointed out that, for all he knew, Sir Charles Tupper might, at the opening of parliament, bring in a motion to condemn him for sending a contingent to South Africa. That was a proper position to take, especially in view of the fact that Sir Charles Tupper had made no public repudiation of his former statement that we must never take part in Britain's wars. On that occasion I asked the Prime Minister-and this is a point I want placed en record-whether if Sir Charles Tupper should endorse his action, in case he should send a contingent to South Africa, that would be of any service to him. He said it would be of material service. Then I replied that I thought I could get such an endoxsation. I went down to the telegraph office and put up my good money and sent a very long telegram to Sir Charles Tupper at Halifax, asking an endorsation to Sir Wilfrid Laurier of the sending of a contingent. That telegram was repeated from Halifax to Sir Charles Tupper, who was speaking somewhere out in the country, and Sir Charles Tupper answered it, but his reply was hung up in Halifax. I called at the telegraph office to know why the message had not been answered. I wanted to know if it had been delivered and they said yes, and I was presented with another bill for repeating the telegram to Sir Charles Tupper somewhere in Nova Scotia, which I paid. I then asked that the telegram be traced. It was traced and found to have been answered, but the answer was hung up in Halifax. The answer was then forwarded, and I found that my leader had been converted and gave a hearty endorsa-tion to the Prime Minister in case he should see his way clear to sending a contingent. These are the facts. The contingent was raised and sent, and let me point' out to the


Samuel Hughes: Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) who, the other day, in speaking on another matter, said we were getting our profits from ,the development of the country-let me point out that that development is not due to his superior genius or financial ability or to any policy this government has inaugurated, but it is due in recent years to the fact that our boys did go to South Africa and take part in the upbuilding of the empire, and they thereby gave Canada >oar advertisement such as she never had before.


Mr FIELDING.: If that is due to my hi n. friend, the whole thing is due to him.


Samuel Hughes: I am modest, Mr. Speaker, and am not making any claim personally, but I want to show that it is due to the inspiration, to the spirit of fearlessness and not to the spirit of proceeding along the line of least resistance, characteristic of my hon. friend the Finance Minister, that Canada's greatness is due. It is due to the fact that public opinion forced the hands of both leaders, that the contingent from the Dominion joined hands with those from the motherland and both fought in South Africa. There has been a great deal of sympathy between the colonies and the motherland since the war. We have had imperial conferences and considerable progress made thereunder. The people on either side are beginning to understand each other better. We now have the establishment of a general staff, and let me point out that the Minister of Militia has always been ready -to do his part, so far as he was permitted by the backing he got on both sides of the House. We have now an interchange of officers with the imperial forces going on, and let me point out that it would be in the best interests of the country that this interchange should not be confined to the permanent corps, but be extended to our active militia. There are in Canada thousands of young men, some of whom could give up their winter months and others their summer months without much loss to themselves', who are now splendid officers in our active militia, who could easily be exchanged and would bring back to each district the experience and instruction gained in the British army. I would Tecommend the minister not to limit this exchange to members of the ordinary permanent corps, but extend it to the active militia as well.


Frederick William Borden: There is no limitation except qualification.


Samuel Hughes: My whole policy is gradually to bring out the ideas I have presented to the House and the country and

if those ideas are not worth anything let them be brushed aside. We find too that the colonies are more and more being confronted from time to time with the outcome of the South African war. Had Lord Milner's plan been carried out, every colony which took part in that war would have had a voice in its settlement. But these ideas are becoming gradually embodied in action as time rolls on. Owing to the policy of our Postmaster General, Mr. Le-mieux, postal facilities are gradually being improved between Canada and the mother country and throughout the empire as well. British immigration is coming into Canada, and best of all, we find this session that the leader of the government and the leader of the opposition, in speeches on practically this very issue, have declared that it is Canada's right and duty and intention if necessary to stand by the motherland until the last shot is fired in the upholding of Britain the world over. I am proud to say that Sir James Whitney, Prime Minister of Ontario, has come out openly in favour of a full partnership union between Great Britain and all her colonies. Various causes have been tending towards the development of this object. There was the tercentenary celebration at Quebec, where everybody was delighted at the showing made by Canadian volunteers. I understand the minister declared on that occasion that he was amazed to see the boys go by as well as they did in that splendid review on the old historic Plains of Abraham at Quebec. In this connection may I be permitted to compliment the right hon. the Prime Minister on securing an extension of the term of His Excellency Lord Grey, who took such deep interest in the successful carrying through of the Tercentenary celebration. The visit of the Prince of Wales had a great deal to do with still further cementing the tie between Canada and the mother country. Also the visit of the veteran Lord Roberts, while Lord Strath-cona, by his always splendid contributions to the empire and his actions for the upholding of England, has done much to bring about the splendid feeling which exists to-day. Other distinguished visitors, such as General Pole-Carew, aided the good work, and in short our progress and development in recent years is due to the fact that Canada has gained a better understanding of Britain and Britain a better understanding of her colonies, and in a very short time, a full partnership union shall be secured. In ten short years, great changes have taken place. Ten years ago we heard the dreamers of annexation declaring that our destiny was to be annexed to the United States. But to-day the United States realizes that, as a nation, it would be infinitely stronger not to have Canada annexed to it but to have Canada continue part and parcel of Britain. The
United States will be much safer on the Pacific seaboard in that case than if the whole Pacific coast belonged to it. In other words, the Americans realize thei issue for them is whether the western boundary of the United States shall be the coast line of the Pacific or the table lands of the Rocky mountains. And the United States would no doubt be much more powerful, having a strong ally on the other part of the Pacific coast, thus making it absolutely impossible for any foreign power to assail the western coast of the United States. The dream therefore of annexation to the United States has long since vanished. Ten years ago, you would find1 an odd one in favour of Canadian independence-a puny sort of thing in a pismire shaped republic. That dream has long since vanished. It is a myth. Those who indulged in it have realized that from any point of view, from the viewpoint of dollars and cents or financial standing or any other aspect, it would never do. Canada has become one of the world's factors; we have ships on every sea, we have our missionaries in every land, and we find it absolutely necessary that we should become part and parcel of the empire in the management and government of the world. To give up that destiny and become a little one-horse republic would make us a laughing stock. We would be another Corea or Denmark or some little issue of that kind without any influence whatever, where as a part and parcel of the British empire our position would be improved on every hand. I find that the question of Canadian independence is largely now relegated to drawing room dreamers, of which you will find one ot two occasionally in some of our cities and towns and an odd one in this city of Ottawa. But they are gradually falling away.
Some years ago the right hon. the Prime Minister, in a moment of weakness, made a speech in which he depicted the colonies as like unto fruit that gradually ripens and falls from the parent tree. Did the right hon. gentleman ever stop to consider what is the fate of fruit that drops from the tree? It is gobbled up by some small boy or falls into decay. We do not aspire in the Dominion any longer to have the fate of ripe fruit. We desire to be part and parcel of the old trunk which annually produces fruit that is used in other ways. Ten years ago there was a feeling abroad amongst Britain's enemies, Germany, Austria and France-they were all enemies then-that the British flag should be driven off the seas. Russia was to have India and France Egypt, Germany was to have the control of the Balkans and South Africa, and Canada, Australia and New Zealand were to be divided up. That plan would have been carried out but- for certain actions to which I shall refer later. But the chief cause of their

want of action was that when the issue arose in 1899, the colonies came to the assistance of the motherland and the agitation fell to the ground. It perhaps will not be amiss if I were to give a little outline of my suggestions. I do not mean that these should be hard and fast rules, but what I say is this, that the British empire has arrived at a period to day when it should have statesmen-men of genius and ability-to take hold of the issue and solve it, and that issue can be solved more easily than was accomplished the union of the American colonies over a hundred years ago, or the confederation of Canada in 1867 or the confederation of the Austrian states a few years ago or the confederation of South Africa now being formed. The leader of this government, the leader of the opposition and hundreds more men throughout the empire who have the requisite skill and genius, could sit down together and devise a scheme of confederation more easily than could the fathers of confederation devise our present system. I merely outline this to show what the frame work might be. There should be a confederation of Great Britain and Ireland, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. That can be brought about in some shape or manner, and a plan could be devised by which each of these w'ould maintain its own parliament as now, but there would be one great union parliament which would deal vdth international affairs, imperial questions of defence, trade and commerce and navigation


Mr. PAQUET.: Would each province have its own parliament?


Samuel Hughes: Certainly. Canada would have its own parliament as now. This parliament would still remain the Canadian parliament, Canada would still retain its provincial governments, we would still retain our county and municipal governments. But instead of being really nothing in the empire, we should have the honour of being partners, and each of the partners would retain its own rights as now. There would be no interference, direct or indirect, with any of the rights or liberties held, by any part of the Dominion to-day. This imperial parliament would deal only with the line of questions I have indicated, such as diplomatic service, the tariff and trade and navigation and so on.


Wilfrid Laurier: The tariff also?


Samuel Hughes: Yes, preferential tariff. I know that the right hon. gentleman does not agree with that, but he is a good pupil and I have every reason to believe he will come right on the issue before very long. Then my idea would be that there should be one imperial parliament Mr. HUGHES.
with representatives on a small scale from each of its parts-say an upper House with one representative to every 300,000 or 400,000 population, on the present basis, and a lower House, with one member to every 150,000 to 250,000.


Mr. FIELDING.: Both elective?


Samuel Hughes: That is a matter of detail. So far as I am concerned I would say elect them.


William Stevens Fielding: What about the lords?


Samuel Hughes: I am not particular. The fact that a man happens to be a lord and cannot keep the county lie lords over should give him no respect in my mind. I have always been and hope always to be one who stands or falls by appeal directly to the people.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That's radical.


Samuel Hughes: Radical? Call it so if you like. The radical of to-day is the constitutionalist of to-morrow.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? And I am serious in asking it. About representation in the proposed imperial parliament, would it be on the basis of representation by population for the whole empire?


Samuel Hughes: I do not wish to take up time in dealing with that at length, but I have already' pointed out that whether you take it from the point of view of the trade returns, the financial returns, or the population, it is surprising how close all these keep together. I am only suggesting a policy, and how it is to be worked out is a question of detail.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When my hon. friend says the proportionate representation of the colonies, would Canada be represented according to population?


Samuel Hughes: We are growing. The mother country is not growing, at least to anything like the same extent. It is a mere matter of division-all you have to do is to take the unit of representation and divide it into the population.


William Stevens Fielding: How about the colour line?


Samuel Hughes: That is not in issue. But, since the minister has asked me the question, I will say that I have never seen any reason why a law-abiding, decent man who pays his taxes, understands his duties, and lives a moral life, and has a black skin, should not be of as much consideration in this country, provided he is a British subject, as the anarchist who comes to this country, whose hand is against everybody and whose aim is to

drag down this country, though he happens to be of the white race. I have said before that I see no reason why an Indian, if a law-abiding citizen, should not be of just as much consideration as the white man who neglects his duties as a citizen and defies the laws of the com-inutiity


William Stevens Fielding: I am glad the hon. member for Vancouver (Mr. Cowan) has arrived.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. member for Vancouver will not condemn what I advocate, but he will condemn the action of the government in letting men come in here who are coloured and aliens, and who will not become in any sense British subjects. He condemns the policy of the government in letting these men come in und gradually build up an oriental nation on the western slope between the Rockies and the sea, so that, through the invasion caused by a wave of their hand, the pigmy power of Canada would be driven back over the mountains to the plains. That is what the hon. member for Vancouver and I oppose. Let a man be a British subject and come here, and there will toe no trouble.


William Stevens Fielding: Was there no trouble about Orientals from India coming into British Columbia?


Samuel Hughes: I have expressed myself on that matter. I have been in Vancouver, and I did not find that there was the agitation against the Hindoos there that


William Stevens Fielding: That there was here.


Samuel Hughes: The agitation was against the special oriental class to whom our friends opposite are bowing down in fear and trembling. They are the ones that there is trouble over.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does the hon. member (Mr. Hughes) know how many Japanese came to Canada last year? Does he know that there were less than a hundred?


Samuel Hughes: building up of the empire. There would be no dwarf ted citizenship in this full partnership, no dependence on the making of an impossible republic. There is an odd dreamer here and there, like my friend Mr. Ewart, drawingroom statesmen, who look to the establishment of a small country like Norway and Sweden, separate nations with one sovereign, or that we become a republic. The time has gone by for that sort of thing. Under full partnership union our citizenship and manhood would be higher, we should have enlarged autonomy, greater influence, greater power and privileges, infinitely greater security and more prestige; and all at less cost and less danger. And all this is possible. The difficulties, as I pointed out, are nothing as compared with the difficulties that faced those who undertook the upbuilding of the Canadian confederation, the United States, German, Australian or South African federation. The issues of property, civil rights and privileges conferred by one community and all these local issues would not appear and there would be free sailing for union. Sir John Macdonald long ago portrayed it. The first minister of Canada (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) to-day has practically endorsed it in his speeches again and again. In his splendid speech before the students of the University of Toronto-I need not quote it again,-he pointed out in language which I cannot aspire to imitate why we should remain part and parcel of the British empire forever. I believe he has come right round to that policy and I only wish he were ten years younger-he is plenty young enough but he does not think so-so that he would take hold of the scheme and carry it on to completion ably assisted by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition. At the time of confederation there were a number of gentlemen who were opposed to it and we heard the survivors of these telling their little story at the banquet the other night and one by one expressing his conviction that he had been wrong in opposing the confederation of Canada. So, Sir, I feel that those who are opposed to this scheme today-and there are very few opposed to it, who have considered the matter-will in years to come stand up and testify to the propriety of the policy which I now advocate.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


Samuel Hughes: Mr. Speaker, at recess I was speaking of the general framework and making suggestions in order that it might be discussed from time to time, the weak points eliminated and any strong points retained. The general framework was that there should be, for the empire, a great imperial parliament composed of the King, an upper House, Senate, or Mr. HUGHES.
Lords, or whatever you choose to call it, and a lower House, or Commons, and I expressed the hope that this might be consummated during the time of the present sovereign of Great Britain. Now, Sir, one frequently hears men first in public affairs, men prominent in the world, saying: ' Oh, the period has arrived when there will be no more wars; civilization is upon such a high standard of excellence that there will be no more wars.'


Mr. HENDERSON.: Hear, hear.


Samuel Hughes: I know that my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) voices a worthy sentiment, but let us examine for a moment the state of affairs in Canada to-day. I claim that the world's civilization is due to the policy of decentralization carried out under the British government, that it is largely based on Britain's civilization and that practically the civilization of the world has drawn its inspiration from the civilization of the British Islands. That civilization has its foundation in the old Anglo Saxon system of decentralization. In the early days the tithing, or group of ten freemen, was a court as well as a council. Groups of ten men constituted the court and council of a hundred, groups of a hundred constituted the shire, and groups of the shires constituted the nation. That gave the nation a large number of men skilled in the science of self-government, councillors and magistrates, each in his own sphere, and that is the foundation principle of the municipal system of the United States, Canada, of Great Britain and, aye, of every civilized land in the world to-day. Backing up this system we find the majesty of Great Britain's army and navy and in connection with that I may say that the civilization of the world to-day is due to the power, the might and the fairness of Britain's army and navy along with the missionary. _ Take the Fiji Islands as an instance; it is only a few years since cannibalism was rampant in the Fiji Islands but as a result of the interference of Britain's army and navy, together with the missionaries, we find that life and property are as safe in the most remote islands in the midst of the Pacific to-day as they are in the city of Ottawa. ExPresident Roosevelt recently published an article concerning British rule in India and what he says concerning British rule in India will apply with the same force to Egypt, the Soudan, Australia, New Zealand and every part of the world where British influence has been spread. ExPresident Roosevelt's article says:
India is ' the most colossal example history affords of the successful administration by men of European blood of a thickly populated region in another continent. It is the greatest feat of the kind that has been performed

since the break-up of the Roman empire. Indeed, it is a greater feat than was performed under the Roman empire/
##****[DOT]
' England does not draw a penny from India for English purposes; she spends for India the revenues raised in India; and they are spent for the benefit of the Indians themselves/
****#[DOT]*
' The mass of the people have been and are far better oft than ever before, and far better of! than they would now be if the English control were overthrown or withdrawn. Indeed, if the English control were now withdrawn from India the whole peninsula would become a chaos of bloodshed and violence; all the weaker peoples and the most industrious and law-abiding would be plundered and forced to submit to indescribable wrong and oppression; and the only beneficiaries among the natives would be the lawless, the violent, and the bloodthirsty/
###*#**
' Every well-wisher of mankind, every true friend of humanity, should realize that the part which England has played in India has been to the immeasurable advantage of India, and for her honour, her profit, and her civilization we should feel a profound satisfaction in the stability and the permanence of English rule. I have seen many American missionaries who have come from India, and I cannot overstate the terms of admiration in which they speak of English rule in India, and of the incalculable benefits which it has conferred upon the natives/
That is the language of no less a personage than ex-President Roosevelt. And as I said, from the icebound regions of the Arctic ocean to those of the southern seas, the same rule will apply wherever British influence has been spread. There is another point in regard to the possibility of the human race having attained such a high degree of civilization as to enable it to do away with war to which I would like to refer. If we are such a highly civilized race in Canada, and we pTofess to be one of the highest in the world, have we yet attained that degree of civilization at which it would be possible for us to abandon our courts of justice, judges, magistrates, constables and jails? Why, Sir, if in Canada, or in the city of Ottawa, we should abolish those institutions for the maintenance of law and order in our own midst, anarchy would rule inside of a month. We would find rapine and murder and all sorts of crime dominant, and it would mean that the better elements of the community would be at the mercy of the lawless. So it is in the history of nations. The lawless and nowerful nations which believe in might rather than right would dominate the world as they did in days gone by, and it is only the maintenance and perpetuation of the influence of civilization by British rule that prevents these
things taking place to-day. It is a universally admitted fact that British rule marks the difference between civilization and barbarism. British influence marks the difference between freedom and slavery, between centralization and decentralization of government, between the rule of honour, of law, of fair play and the open debate on the one hand and the rule of dishonour, slavery, injustice, and star chamber methods on the other, between the development and degradation of individuals and between the enfranchisement of the mind and heart and superstition, bondage. Such is the influence of British civilization to-day. What are the characteristics of civilization as contrasted with those of barbarism? They are found in the characteristics that have been peculiar to the British government in all periods since its development. We have the cooperation of responsible persons for the general welfare in the establishment of schools, colleges and universities by the people and ruled and governed by the people, wherein training is given to the youth of the land in education, and training is given to those managing them in self-government. They are found in the establishment of charities, hospitals, asylums, homes for the aged and a great number of institutions for those who are not able to look after themselves, for those who have become a burden to the state and who, in olden times, were disposed of in brute fashion rather than in the humane way in which they are now treated. They are found in Britain's law and order, in the punishment of crime and in the many results of popular rule. Maintenance of law and order, the punishment of crime, the holding as sacred, life, person and property, these are characteristics of British rule. The development of Christian and fraternal societies, the establishment of societies for mutual aid and progress and all such associations calculated to indirectly upbuild the people, these also are characteristic of British rule. In the maintenance of civil and religious liberty Britain takes her stand foremost among the nations of the earth, as she does in inventions, discoveries, research, development and the encouragement given to science. In the role of morality 'and decency, in support of the noble aims of woman, Britain leads the way. To sum up, in the rule of the people for the people and through the people no country equals Britain. I have no hesitation in saying, Sir, that if Britain were placed in a secondary position the world would go back 1,000 years, for as has been aptly said; ' A thousand years scarce serve to form a state ; an hour may lay an empire in the dust. Therefore, if we desire the perpetuation of the institutions which British civilization has conferred on the world it behooves us to stand firmly for the old land. Full part-

nership union between Great Britain and her colonies would give us all the advantages we could possibly possess, with less taxation, a higher status, greater autonomy, more special privileges, and an emphatic guarantee for their maintenance. Suppose that to-morrow we were a small republic, and suppose we had certain so-called rights and privileges that we considered sacred, what guarantee would we have that we could hold them for a week? None whatever. But, under this policy I am now propounding we would have a guarantee of the maintenance for all time in all human probability of the sacred rights which are conferred on us. We would nartieipate in the great influence that the wealth of such an empire would confer. Already the influx of English population is great into these lands, and when I use the words British population I include our kin, I include our French fellow-countrymen who have returned from the United States imbued with all the love of liberty that we have and sharing the same ideas of human progress and government, and I include the American citizens who, finding a home here, are practically to all intents and purposes Britishers before they come.
It is advanced as an excuse why we should not assume any duties for the upbuilding of the empire that we have to construct the National Transcontinental Railway, the Hudson Bay Railway, and the Georgian Bay Canal. But sir, had we this partnership union which I advocate there would be such an impetus given to the progress of this country that business would flow to us and we would reap a revenue from the operation of these public works which we could not possibly otherwise obtain. Full partnership union is necessary both from the empire's viewpoint and from the colonial viewpoint. Britain is a central figure, she is the heart of the empire, she must import her food products and her materials for manufacturing; she must have command of the sea. Germany has her railway connections with the lands that produce her food supplies and these communications cannot be inter-ferred with except by the nations with whom she is trading. Britain has no railways leading to the centres of production and she must control the sea if she is to have an uninterrupted channel for the transmission, to her shores of the products she requires. Alone, Britain cannot long be supposed to maintain that command against her allied enemies. But, with Britain and her colonies united and commanding the bases in all parts of the world no combination of nations on the face of the earth could contend against them. The sea would be under the domination of Britain and her colonies, the merchant shipping would be hers, and under a preferential Mr. HUGHES.
trade arrangement such as Britain would undoubtedly have with her colonies the interchange of commerce would be tremendous. In short, Britain should depend not on the good will of the dreamers who preach peace at any price, Britain should depend not on the love of the foreigner because friendly as Britain is with nearly all nations any one of them would be willing to clip her wings and tol endeavour to impair her trade and to encroach on her (colonies. Britain's power and strength depend not on the love of a foreigner nor on the palaver of the peace-at-any-price dreamer but on the fact that Britain herself is strong. King Edward's crown rests on his head in security because of the strong right arm of the sons of the empire the wide world over. But, woe betide, the empire when she has to depend on the good will of any foreigner to maintain her high position. It is not long since the German emperor made the hold statement that the trident, the sceptre of the sea must be in his hands. I am free to! admit that possibly it is a little difficult for the colonies to say to the motherland : * We want you to do so and so,' when the motherland has not yet produced statesmen equal to rising to the position that the empire now demands. Let me point out what I consider Britain's duty to be. She should show respect for herself. Up to the present she has not done so. Britain has for generations spent her blood and treasure in civilizing Egypt, the Soudan, India, South Africa, in peopling and developing Australia and New Zealand, and yet after this expenditure of blood and treasure England's enemies can go to these countries, trade there on the same condition as the British merchants and manufacturers and rob Britain of her reward. Britain in that respect has not been true to herself. It is pretty nearly settled in Britain now that she must get rid of the foolish fad of Cobdenism.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh.


Samuel Hughes: I mean nothing personal to the Prime Minister; I had no reference to that Cobden medal which was presented to him. And, while it may not be respectful to speak of the idea of men like John Bright and others who have graced English history, as a fad, yet what does it amount to. Their followers claim that the growth and progress of England in the last 50 years have been due to Cobdenism.
About the time Cobdenism came into force in England, steam came into general use, and Britain became the workshop of the world for the manufacture of engines, boilers and the various commodo-ties connected with that industry. Neither Germany nor France had a single boiler manufactory at any time. Britain was a hive of industry, and those gentlemen

would fold their arms and say: ' See what Cobdenism has done for us,' when it was in reality the inventiveness of the man who discovered the application of steam to industry who brought all this, about. Next came the iron ship-building era, when the dockyards of Britain were hives of industry for the wide world; and again these gentlemen folded their arms and said: 'See the progress we are making under free trade.' However, it is not necessary for me to go into details of that question at this time.
I am ready to take it up on any and every occasion with no fear of the result. Britain, however, is getting wide awake in these days, and whoever lives five years from today will see the end of the fad Cobdenism, for it will be consigned to the garret of oblivion, as other British fads have been.
I maintain that it is Britain that should take the lead in upholding a partnership union of the whole empire. Britain should maintain the absolute control of the sea in order that she may be impregnable. In this regard I may differ from some hon. gentlemen in this House and possibly from some gentlemen in England. To my mind the policy laid down many years ago by the Hon. Joseph Howe was the one which should commend itself to a great and free people. That policy was that there should be but one imperial fleet. It is all right to have our coast vessels to co-operate with that fleet, and also to have naval bases in all the great colonies. It is all right to have dockyards for repairing ships on the Nova Scotia coast, the Quebec coast and the British Columbia coast; but all these should be controlled by one great central naval management, and not by a number of small disconnected managements. There should be naval bases in every part of the world, for the storage of coal, for dockyards, for the repair of ships and even the construction of ships, and for the construction and storage of war material if necessary. There should also be one great imperial army; and in this connection I would say that we should train the boys of the country from twelve years of age and onward, in accurate rifle-shooting and in the different manoeuvres of drill. It takes the grown man years to learn these whereas the average boy of twelve years of age can learn them in a few weeks, so that by the time he leaves school he will be perfected in drill and shooting. No man can become an expert in lacrosse, cricket, fpotball or other athletic games unless he has engaged in them from boyhood; and in the same way those who are trained in the use of the rifle from boyhood handle it to perfection in manhood. In this way you will secure the most economical, efficient and universal system, and you will have an army of free men at all times ready to take the field at a moment's notice if the country is invaded. I could cite many authorities to show that it is practically impossible for an army to advance by a frontal attack against men under cover and simply armed with rifles. I have pointed out on other occasions how impossible it was for the Northern army at the battle of Bull's Run, although they came on with splendid courage, to take the position held by the enemy, armed simply with muzzle-loading rifles. And with the superiority of the modern arm over the arms of those days, it is practically impossible for an attacking force to win if the defending force understands the use of the rifle. Therefore the cheapest as well as the most efficient form of defence would be to have the boys of our schools trained in that way. In addition to the full partnership union we must have the spirit that will carry out these things from generation to generation for the upbuilding of the defences of the empire.
And now I come to the concluding portion of my remarks. At the time I gave notice of this motion, the agitation which has been for some months stirring up Europe had not been developed. It was known long ago that in 1896 the German nation demanded the independence of the Transvaal, which recognized the suzerainty of Great Britain. It happened in the year 1896, when Russia's star was in the ascendant, that Germany's intercourse with England became strained and almost unfriendly. Kaiser Wilhelm had inaugurated the political new year by buoying up President Kruger in the historic telegram of Jameson's defeat, and provoking a storm of indignation in England. His subjects in Pretoria, five days before that, had despatched a telegraphic petition to him, entreating him to intervene as though he and not Queen Victoria were the suzerain of the Transvaal. In the German White Book was published a despatch by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Marschall Von Bieberstein, to the German ambassador in London, stating that Germany's material interest required the maintenance of the Transvaal Republic as an independent state. It is now a recognized fact that Germany, France and Russia were hand in hand with the Transvaal in the attempt to bying about the disruption of the empire.
Now, let us see what Germany's policy has been in the past. Starting from the time when Frederick the Great was enabled to build up his power by means of Englishmen and English money, we come down to the wars of the Peninsula and Waterloo, when Englishmen and English money were again expended largely with the aim of establishing the German nation on a firm footing, instead of being content to supply soldiers of fortune for Europe. Then came the Zollverein or customs union, and then a gradually perfected military svs-tern. As has recently been pointed out by

German generals, the policy was that Germany should no longer be the arena for European despots to develop their armies, but that the German people should form an independent empire of their own. At the time of the_ Schleswig-Holstein war, when Germany wished to obtain control of that country, did she give the Danish government any long or extended notice? No, but the entire German nation and the German part of Austria united and fell on Denmark without a moment's warning, and wrested Schleswig-Holstein from that Kingdom. A few years later, in 1866, Germany and Austria quarrelled and at the battle of Koenigratz the issue was settled in an hour. Germany gave no warning on that occasion, she did not wait for Austria to prepare and arm herself with the new weapon, but fell on her and crushed her remorselessly. Shortly after this victory, the union of the German states was accomplished. Then, without a moment's warning Germany caused the international relations between her and France to become so strained that there was no option but war; and in 1870 the entire forces of Germany were massed on the borders of France, and in a few weeks the French nation was humiliated and beaten to the ground. All these events were parts of a long premediated policy on the part of Germany. Then came the German alliance with Austria and her control of the Balkan states, so that she is now extending her influence to the Euxine and the Adriatic. There remain four objects which are openly advocated by Germany. These are the annexation of the German provinces of Russia, the annexation of Holland and Belgium, the annexation of Denmark and the control of the Baltic. These are not mere jingo talk, but well conceived plans known to be carefully laid down in the German foreign and war offices, and the last one, which is but recently advocated, is the control of the seas. ' The trident of the seas,' says the German emporer ' must be in our hands.' And let me here point out that this policy of the German emperor is forced on that government, not by the militarists, not by the soldiers of the nation, but by its merchants and manufacturers, who have goods to sell and to buy. They are the men who are forcing this policy on the German empire. Soldiers do not want war, but it is these gentlemen, who profit by soldiers going to war, who want it.
I might point out in this connection that the British nation has always been friendly with Germany. Germany has no quarrel with the British nation. In Gladstone's time, he urged Bismark to obtain control of West Africa. He appealed to the Germans to take a fair share of the white man's burden ; and in consequence of that appeal, Germany stepped into the arena, took up the policy of colonization in Africa, and settled some dis-Mr. HUGHES.
putes which had occurred between Ger-may traders under the British flag. West Africa then became a part and parcel of Germany at the instigation of the British Premier. We have sufficient evidence to show that the troubles which led up to the Jameson raid were inspired by Germany, whose policy it became, after having obtained West Africa, to form a union with the Transvaal and thus get control of that country and confine British domination to Cape Colony in the south. That is why Britain rushed up her territory and took possession of Griqualand west, Bechu-analand, Mataibelaland and Rhodesia. Germany's object was to form a confederation of East and West Africa. In this way Britain checkmated the policy of Germany, whose object it was to drive the British flag into the sea off the Cape of Good Hope. It is not necessary that I should go further into the details of this scheme. Germany and Austria are practically one nation. Their allied armies are superior to those of almost any other two nations in the world. Their navies united would be a formidable opponent to the British. Britain's duty to herself and her colonies is to run no risk in this regard. I am not in favour, as a system, of our handing oveT Dreadnoughts to Britain. If we do hand over any ships we have the right to have our say in their disposition; but at the present juncture,
I can see no objection whatever to Canada sending over a Dreadnought-aye ten if necessary-in order that Germany may be warned in time and not follow up her policy of seeking to drive Britain from the seas. Then we should have a full partnership union between the empire and her colonies. That once accomplished, there need be no longer any fear of the invasion of Britain, and no play such as ' the Englishman's Home ' would find room in any theatre. Nor would there be any marauding in the colonies by cruisers or free booter ships of other nations. Commercial ships would largely fly the British flag because that flag would guarantee them protection. Britain's position is insular, so is Australia's and New Zealand's, India is isolated and practically insular. Canada, with her coast lines on both oceans, must have command of that sea or she will be powerless. Therefore, the interests, not only of Britain, but of her colonies demand that they shall all form one great maritime union, whose supremacy no one would dare attack.
In conclusion, I have only to point out that the true policy, in order to perpetuate Britain's commercial sunremacy, not only in her own lands but throughout the wide world, is to make herself so powerful as to command the respect of all. And I know of no nation which has ever commanded the respect of foreign nations by

lying down and letting them walk over her. The way to command respect is to stand on your own rights and be dominant in your own sphere. We should be so powerful that we shall be in a position to demand that this craze for armaments shall cease. To-day the attention of nations is largely taken up, not by the development of humanizing arts, not by the development of the hearts and souls of the people within their borders, but by the effort to keep themselves so strong as to prevent foreign aggression. Under the system of full partnership union, Britain and her colonies would be in a position to dictate to other nations that these extravagant armaments shall cease and progress made on lines which will contribute to the comfort and happiness of their people. That the colonies are willing there can be no doubt. The South African war gave the most positive contradiction to the statement of General Hutton that Canada would not send 25 men to aid the empire, because in less than one week thousands of young men offered their services, and more than the thousands who were taken could have been had.
What is wanted is men to face the issue and to fight it to a finish. I would be delighted, though opposed in Canadian politics to the right hon. leader of the government, to see him step out and close his career in a long season of usefulness in an imperial parliament. The right hon. gentleman occupies a position unique in the history of the world. He has it in his power to-day to do more than any other individual towards the furtherance of this great benefit to humanity. I trust he may see his way to do it, and that he will long be spared to carry out his policy. The closing sentence of the article to which I have referred, written by this magnificent German writer, speaking of Germany, says:
In the coming conflict, whether it is fought sword in hand or otherwise, what is essential for Germany is a united nation of brothers, in appearance at any rate, as well as a great, a strong and mighty army governed by a firm hand and inspired by unquestioning confidence.
Let me paraphrase that to express the idea of what Britain wants. In the coming conflict, whether it is fought sword in hand or otherwise, what is essential for the British empire is a united Greater Britain, a united nation of brothers, as well as a great, a strong and mighty navy governed from one centre, and inspired by unquestioning confidence. In conclusion, I may be permitted to say, in other words, that what is wanted is-
Not a speedy promise, but a deed for the cause;
Not a flowery speech, but five Dreadnoughts And the empire's welded; and tyrants pause; For Britain's rule and freedom's laws Inspire lordly palace to lowly cot.


Bt. Hon. Sir WILFRID LAURIER (Prime Minister).: My hon. friend (Mr. Hughes)
I am sure will be the first to regret that we are almost within the sound of the summons to His Excellency the Governor General to prorogue this House. He will agree with me, I am sure, that it is not possible to give this subject, at this period of the session, the attention he would like to see given to it. My hon. friend is an enthusiast on the subject on which he has spoken to-day, not for the first time, but for the third or fourth time. I am not quite sure that, if I were to discuss this question. I would agree with him in everything he has said. I would take exception to some things, although there are others in which I would agree with him. He has said that he would not expect, at this stage of the session, such a debate as otherwise he would have hoped. I simply beg to offer my hon. friend my congratulations upon the zeal which he has displayed in this very laudable effort, and, though we do not see eye to eye with him in this matter, whatever may be our views we can discuss this question, I hope, some other time. For my part I admire the lofty views he has expressed, even though I believe he could not secure such an expression as he would like to have. I hope he will agree to withdraw his motion.


John Allister Currie: The right hon. leader of the government (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has perhaps rightly stated that at this late hour of the session it is too much to ask the House to go into any very extended debate on the very great and important question which has been proposed. It would also be an imposition, perhaps, for me to make any extended reference to the various subjects covered by this resolution and referred to in the speech of my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) who has moved it. However, Sir, I wish briefly to state that I am in hearty accord with the sentiments expressed in this resolution, and I hope that at some future session of the House the matter will be taken up seriously and discussed when there is plenty of time for discussion, and when a better expression of opinion can be had from the members of this House than it would be possible to elicit at this time. Several lines of thought have been developed by the hon. member who has moved this resolution. But above everything else there is this question before the public at the present moment,_ the burning i question so far as the empire is concerned.
.COMMONS
the question of the maintenance of the integrity of that empire and its defence against attack by foreign nations. The question has assumed the form of a contribution to the navy in the shape of a Dreadnought, or, as this House has passed upon it, in the form of the establishing of the nucleus of a navy. I regret that, on looking carefully over the estimates, I do not find that any provision has been made by the government of the day to send commissioners to attend the council for the defence of the empire or for the beginning of the nucleus of a navy, as was unanimously decided upon by the House. I do not wish to prolong the discussion, but only to express my regret that the House has allowed this session to pass without giving this matter more serious attention. Perhaps, before the House meets again the great war which we read about in the newspapers, and which every Englishman, with few exceptions, expects, may have broken out, and we should find the parliament of Canada without any monetary provision made to carry out any of the beautiful ideas that have been expressed by the leader of the government and other members of this House as to what they would do in the case of necessity and in case of the integrity of the empire being challenged. I heartily second the resolution, and, while it is too late to press the motion at the present time, I hope that on some future occasion an opportunity will be afforded to _ discuss it at a greater length. I have this to say, so far as the solution of this question is concerned, I have read history wrongly if it is not the fact that the English-speaking race, apart altogether from what source that race has sprung, has never failed to meet the emergency if called upon to establish a form of democratic government _ among the people. They have done that in the case of the United States, the English government has done it in the cases of India and Egypt, and it can be done for the entire Birtish empire.


Samuel Hughes: I introduced this resolution early in the session as a notice of motion. After the first three weeks I had no opportunity of discussing it except late at night. I therefore took the opportunity of withdrawing it from the Order Paper and introducing it in this way. I know it is impossible for the matter to receive the consideration from many gentlemen in the House who would be pleased to discuss it, but I felt it my duty to my friends, partly at whose request I introduced it and also felt it necessary for the gradual dissemination of these ideas to move this resolution. With the permission of the House and with the consent of my seconder I have the honour to withdraw the motion.
Motion withdrawn.


John Allister Currie: 



Mr. A. B. WARBURTON (Queens, P.E.I.).: Almost from the first day of the session I have desired to bring to the attention of the House a matter which perhaps is not of such importance to other parts of the Dominion as to the part from which I come, although to us it is of the most vital importance. I had a notice on the Order Paper with reference to it until the government took Mondays. I then dropped that notice with the intention of bringing the matter up in this way. As that resolution sets forth in concise form the subject which I wished to discuss, I shall read it. It was as follows:
For a copy of all memorials, reports, correspondence and documents in the possession of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, in the Department of Trade and Commerce and in any other department, relating to the route of the winter steamers between Prince Edward Island and the mainland of Canada, and suggesting and recommending a change or changes in the said route and an increase in the number of trips daily of such winter steamers. Also a copy of all memorials, reports, correspondence and documents relating to the route of the summer mail steamers between Charlottetown and the mainland of 'Canada, and suggesting or recommending a change or changes in that route, and an increase in the number of trips daily of such summer mail steamer, and also with regard to connecting such suggested new summer route or routes with a point or points on the Intercolonial Railway.
Members who have been in the House for some years quite understand that we have had frequent trouble in connection with our communication with the mainland, especially winter communication. It is true that for the next few months ' the winter of our discontent ' has gone by, but the trouble will return year after year until some method is found by which the difficulties with which we have to contend are removed.
Prince Edward Island, which was discovered by Jacques Cartier in 1534, on his first voyage, ought for that reason to evoke the sympathies of my fellow Canadians who derive their descent from old France. In form a crescent situated in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, for 140 miles it marches with and roughly parallels on its southern coast the north shores of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. From these two provinces it is separated by the strait of Northumberland, which at its narrowest point is only eight miles in width but which widens out a little as it runs east and west. Prince Edward Island, as you are aware, did not come into confederation until some years after the original compact of confederation, embracing the four older provinces, and continuous communication, summer and

winter \vas the great inducement to come into confederation. Complaints have been made in this House year in and year out, upon this subject of our winter communications. I shall not seriously criticise the efforts made by the present or any former government to provide efficient communication. Each succeeding government, Conservative or Liberal, has made good honest efforts to remove the disabilities under which we have laboured in respect to our winter communications. And they have had a very difficult problem to solve. Along the strait of Northumberland we have a number of ports on the island and on the mainland side and there has _ been much difference of opinion as to which of those ports would be best adapted for the purposes of winter communication-I shall deal with the summer route a little later on. We have had now for a third of a century the winter route between Georgetown on Prince Edward Island and Pictou in Nova Scotia. The result of that third of a century trial has been to demonstrate beyond any fear of successful contradiction that the port of Pictou in Nova Scotia is an absolutely impossible winter port.
I shall give my reasons for this, because I know that my view will be combated to a very considerable extent. I shall leave the House and the government to judge the arguments I am about to advance. The harbour of Pictou opens to the north-east wind. There is a clear sweep of 250 miles down from Belle Isle right into the mouth of Pictou harbour, and with a north-east wind the ice is brought all that distance and gradually blocks and closes that harbour from side to side. Pictou island is right off the mouth of Pictou haTbour, and the ice catches there and jams on the Caribou shore on one side and Pictou county on the other, right across from shore to shore, a solid mass. Not only that, but as that wind continues, aided by the tide, the ice is driven and rafted, it is rolled under until finally it grounds on the bottom and makes a solid mass from the bottom up, from shore to shore, through which it is impossible to pass. You might as well expect a ship to force her way through the cliff on which this building stands as to get through that solid mass of ice. I shall revert to this question of Pictou harbour again but shall first refer to the other ports along Northumberland strait. We have the Summerside-Shediac and the Summerside-Tormentine routes. The Sum-merside-Tormentine route is still advocated by many of our friends. If it is practicable, it would be a good route, and I for one would be quite content with it, as I do not wish to bring any sectional feeling into this matter and do not ask for a port in my own constituency if a better port can be obtained any where else. I will be quite content and so will my constituents to have any poTt
adopted that will give us continuous communication.
The Cape Traverse-Tormentine route has been recommended by engineers of the Pubic Works Department and very strongly recommended by members of this House.
I am not going to pronounce an opinion upon the feasibility of the Tormentine-Traverse route. The Cape Traverse or Carleton or Tormentine route runs directly across at the narrowest place, the part where we heard about a tunnel being built a year or two ago. That is only eight miles wide. It has been reported favourably upon by the engineers of the Public Works Department. I myself have grave doubts as to the feasibility of that route, one reason for my doubts being that at Tormentine there is a reef running out a mile and a half from the shore where the water is only six feet deep at low tide and another shallow or reef two miles or two and a half miles from the shore where the water is also shallow at low tide These winter steamers are vessels of considerable draught and my own opinion -I can only give it for what it is worth because I do not profess to be an expert in these matters-is that these reefs would present an insuperable barrier to the successful carrying out of_ the work there. Then, the estimate for building a pier on the Prince Edward Island side is $1,250,000 and the estimate on the other side is very large but not quite so large as that, still, this is the route for the ice boats running in the winter time when we cannot get our mails and ourselves across. I can tell tne House that it is not much of a pleasure trip I have crossed many times, but i never want to cross again if I can help it. The fourth route is between Georgetown and Prince Edward Island, the present winter port of Prince Edward Island, and Cape George at the mouth of the Gut ot Canso. This route also has its difficulties. I cannot say very much about it myself. But I am told that the ice is always moving and that it would be possible to make the harbour at any time. I am not quite satisfied myself on that point although I cannot speak with any assurance upon it. lhen there is the Souris-Cape George route to which the same remarks would apply as to the Georgetown-Cape George route, lhe same remarks would also apply to tne Souris-Pictou route as I apply to the George-town-Pictou route. When you come to consider all these different routes, those which will arouse the most controversy are the Georgetown-Pictou route and another one which I wish to bring to the attention of this House and that is the direct route between Charlottetown and Brule or Tatama-gouche in the county of Colchester, Nova Scotia. It crosses in a direct line, almost at right angles to the coast of Prince Edward Island-and the distance is about

25 miles. Before I complete my references to these ports I wish to touch upon the efforts that have been made by the Dominion to carry out the terms of confederation by means of winter boats. The first steamer was put upon the routel by the Mackenzie government and it was called the ' Albert.' Although this was the best vessel they could get it was something in the nature of a tug and was not much good but as an experiment at that time when men knew nothing about the conditions to be encountered in the straits it was of considerable value. So it was put on and did the work until such time as the government were able to obtain another vessel. The Mackenzie government purchased a vessel called the 'Northern Light' which was oailt in Quebec by Mr. Sewell. The 'Northern Light ' was built of wood, sheathed with green heart and as an experiment she was very good. She was not at all equal to the work but still owing to her work there we were able to obtain a great deal of experience which was valuable in the time to come when the government decided to put another vessel on the route. The idea of the builder of the 'Northern Light' was to send the vessel on top of the ice and press it down. But, be did not realize the nature of the ice when he formed that scheme because the ice, particularly off Pictou harbour, would have taken the ' Northern Light' and all the other ships, including the Dreadnoughts, packed them on top of the ice and kept them there. The next vessel placed upon the route was the 'Stanley' built by the Conservative government about twenty years ago. She was a very good boat, and when the government put that boat upon the route they made a square, honest effort to carry out the terms of confederation. In 1900 the ' Minto ' was built by the present government and put upon the service, the traffic having increased so much that it was found necessary to have two boats, and it was thought that having tvro boats would prevent the route from being tied up if one of the boats got stuck in the ice. I will give some particulars as to these vessels:
SS. ' Northern Light.'
Built in 1876 at Levis, Que., of wood, 133 feet 2 inches long, 25-foot beam, 14 feet 7 inches draught of water, 267 net tonnage, 393 gross tonnage, and 120 horse-power; single screw.
C. G. S. 'Stanley.'
Length, 207 feet 8 inches; breadth, 32 feet; draught, 17 feet 9 inches; gross tonnage, 914; registered tonnage, 395; horse-power, 300; single screw; built in 1888, steel, by Pair-child, Govan, Scotland.
C. G. S. ' Minto.'
Built by Flemming & Ferguson, Dundee Scotland, 1899, steel; 225 feet long, 32 feet 7 inches beam, draught 18 feet, 372 tons net,


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: and 1,090 tons gross, 446 horse-power; single screw propeller.
New Ice-breaker.
Length, 270 feet 6 inches; beam, 46 feet; draught, 18 feet; indicated horse-power, 6,000; tonnage, 600.
This is a much larger and very more powerful vessel than those on the route and she represents a decided advance on what has been done before, that advance being rendered possible owing to the experience gained in the working of the boats heretofore. 1 referred a moment ago to Pictou as being in view of the experience of thirty-five years, an impossible winter port. Owing to the north east wind, which is the prevailing wind in winter, it is really an ice pocket. No vessel_ can get over if a north east wind has continued for any time. Certainly when we have a northeast wind there is nothing very pleasant about it. I did intend to get statistics of the number of times in these different years in which these vessels had been delayed for a greater or less time, preventing the passage of mails and passengers, but I found the number of times so great that I thought I would only weary the House by going into the figures. I thought that perhaps it might answer my purpose as well and perhaps save the time of the House if I gave my own personal experience in crossing over there. I came out from England in January, 1890, to run an election in the city of Charlottetown. We got stuck in the ice off Pictou harbour and we were there until two days after the election was over, and then I had to go around by the Capes in order to get across. I was in Ottawa in connection with business with this government when I had the honour of being premier of my native province and on my way home 1' was stuck at Pictou for ten days, the 'Stanley' being tied up at the wharf, it being absolutely impossible to get in or out of the harbour. The prevailing northeast wind kept us there for ten days. I was up here again four years ago and I started to go home. I was twenty-three days in getting home. I was stuck in Pictou harbour for fourteen days during which there was a northeast wind blowing. I then had to go around by the Capes to get home. I came back to Ottawa a month or so later and I went to Pictou to take the steamer to get back to Prince Edward Island. One steamer was still outside of the harbour, the other was inside and these vessels were stuck there for fifty-nine days. That was the worst winter we have had in our experience, but there fs never a winter that we are not stopped at some time for several days. This past winter was fairly mild with us but for some days at a time the mails, and passengers could not be landed at Pictou harbour, and my own niece was detained on board the 'Stanley' for five days without being able to reach

her destination. I give this as an example of what we have to put up with. I am not finding fault with any one just now, I am simply stating the naked facts which I believe will speak louder than anything I can say. I shall not refer to the speeches made here or elsewhere on this question, but I shall cite from the opinions of navigators, engineers, and others who have made a study of the matter, and then perhaps hon. gentlemen will be able to judge whether or not the winter crossing can be improved. Mr. Shewan is the resident engineer of the government at St. John, New Brunswick, and he made a report on the Tormentine Cape-Traverse route on the 8th of September, 1900. At that time it was supposed that the best route for the winter steamers would be between Tormentine and Cape Traverse at the narrow part of the straits, where expensive piers would require to be built. Mr. Shewan says:
Up to this time the winter steamer has been crossing from Pietou to Georgetown, a distance of about 42 miles, with more or less irregularity occasioned by the ice.
He refers to the northeast wind driving the ice in to the east end of the straits and completely blocking the passage, but lie goes further, and he is right in saying that it blocks up the eastern end of the strait, He says:
When the ice is packed as in this manner, it is almost impossible for a steamer to force her way through, as will be seen from the following from Admiral Makaroff's description of the voyage of the ' Ermack,' who found it easier to break the ice in the Polar seas with that vessel than in the Baltic, because in the Arctic seas the ice is broken, which in the Baltic is extended from land to I'and.
I have already pointed out that this ice at the mouth of Pietou harbour extends from shore to shore across the outside points of the harbour and grounds at the bottom, which is exactly the condition of things that Admiral Makaroff found in his experience. Admiral Makaroff describing the voyage of the 'Ermack' says:
Floes of ice might be several miles or several fathoms in length. Between the ice floes are the lanes, which are very irregular. Sometimes the ice-floes are pressed against each other and sometimes not. When the ice is not pressed, the progress of the ship is very easy. Floes of ice even nine miles long move away and give passage to the ship. But the fact is that even ice 14 feet thick cracks when charged by the ship, provided there is room to remove the broken parts.
That is exactly where the trouble comes in at the mouth of Pietou harbour; there is no room to remove th ? broken parts. Mr. Gobeil, then deputy Minister of^ Public Works, was instructed to inquire into the
long delay to which I have referred, and on the 20th March, 1905, he reported:
Owing, however, to the difficulties experienced on the present ferry route fi.e., th'e Georgetown-Pictou route) and especially the interruption this winter, which has been serious and worse than in any other year, the question of considering the shorter route via Cape Tormentine and Cape Traverse is one which, I think, must force itself to the attention of the government.
From an inspection of the charts it appears that the line from Pietou to George^ town is where, probably, the ice masses in the greater quantity, and from the direction of the currents, is likely to remain a longer time to prevent the passage of ther ferry steamer.
He adds, and this covers a great part of the opposition that may be offered to the change of route:
Of course there is a disposition always to accept whatever is as immutable, and in changing the establishment of anything that has become, worthily or unworthily, by lapse of time an institution, local prejudices will be met.
This will prove the great difficulty now, as, not unnaturally, there will always be opposition to a change, by the port or ports to and from which the service is now carried. This should not affect the question.
I will not take up more of the time of the House in discussing Pietou except to read r short extract from a report made to the Charlottetown Board of Trade by Mr. Hyndman.


Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.: What Mr. Hyndman?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: Mr. F. W. Hynd-man. In order that the House may know what weight to attach to the report of Mr. Hyndman I may state that he-
Served seven years in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and Newfoundland survey under the late Captain Orlebar, and during that time passed through the several grades from 4th class to 1st class, hydrographic surveyor, and ^surveyed different places in the gulf, the Straits of Belleisle, and on the east and south coasts of Newfoundland, and those charts (of his own construction) are still in use, published by the Hydrographic Office, London.
He afterwards served three years on the survey of Alexandria harbour in Egypt, the Suez canal, the island of Sicily and the coast of Carthage and Tunis in the Mediterranean, under Captain Nares (now Admiral Sir George Nares of Arctic fame).
To become a hydrographic surveyor a man must necessarily be a thorough navigator, and Mr. Hyndman says with regard to the Georgetown-Pictou route:
In order that my remarks may be intelligently understood, it is necessary that you

oft the profits of business men. That is one of the complaints which our business men and boards of trade are continually dinging into the ears of the government and every one else when they get the chance. If those three hauls could be reduced even to two, that would be a very material gain to our people.
I am perfectly aware that any government-I do not care whether the present government or any other-has a very serious task when it undertakes to solve this problem, and I make every allowance for every difficulty that may arise. I am only trying to point out how our conditions could be bettered. The route I have suggested for the winter steamers has not been tested. I may say, although I do not throw this out as a solution of the question, that possibly a company might be formed to take this whole business off the hands of the government. We have in Prince Edward Island a very excellent steam navigation company, which gives most excellent service between Summerside and Point Duchene at the western end and Charlottetown and Pictou at the centre of the island. That company might, if a large subsidy were given-and the government might well afford to give a very large subsidy to have this thing taken off their hands-take over the whole matter. I am not authorized by the company to make any such suggestion, but no doubt they could undertake the business, and I feel that if it were taken in hands by a live company, they could make a success where perhaps we are not doing as well as we would hope. If the route I have advocated were adopted by the government, I am confident it would prove more satisfactory than the present one. It has been the custom among the people of Prince Edward Island always to insist on the pound of flesh from the government. I am not one of those who insist on the pound of flesh. I do not believe in that doctrine in anything, and I do not propose taking any such ground although it is the ground which has generally been taken. 1 am only asking that every proper effort be made to make this winter service a success. They have ice breakers elsewhere. They have them on the great lakes, and the Baltic, where they seem to do pretty well. When our friends insisted that the terms of the union had not been carried out they were met-and I think not fairly-by the reply that what the terms of the union required was a serious, honest effort, and that if the government did all that was practically possible, they were carrying out those terms. Some insist that the terms should be carried out any way, and I am not arguing on that ground; but I say that every effort has not been taken to accomplish the terms of the union with Tegard to the winter navigation, and that every such effort will not he taken Mr. WARBURTON.
until all the harbours likely to afford facilities for winter crossings have been tested. If it be urged that Pictou has been tried fully, that is no answer so long as any other feasible harbour has not been thoroughly tested and proved to be a failure as well.
Then again we have to take up the question, which I did in the resolution I put on the Order Paper so long ago, concerning summer communication. At present we have communication by Summerside and Point du Chene connecting with the Intercolonial, and we have steam communication between Charlottetown and Pictou, as well by steamers owned by the Charlottetown Steam Navigation Company. The distance to Pictou is over 50 miles and to Halifax over 114 miles, making a total of 170 miles. In order to do any business in Halifax we have to leave Charlottetown at about 8 a.m. for Pictou and remain at Pictou three or four hours, and then leave for Halifax at 8 p.m., so that your train arrives at Halifax at 8 a.m. and you have to stay there all that day until the next, no matter how little business you have to do. The trip takes three days, which is absurd for a distance of 170 miles. If you were to take the Brule route you would shorten that distance 50 miles each way or 100 miles on the round trip, and it would be quite practical to leave Charlottetown in the morning, go to Halifax, attend to your business there, and come back the same night if proper connections were made. Is it not an absurdity in this century to find that even with fine steamers connecting with railways, it takes three whole days to make a trip of 170 miles each way and do half an hour's business? What would hon. members say if it took them three days to go to Montreal or even to Toronto from here and back? They would not put up with it. If the summer steamers could make their port at the place at which I am urging the winter steamers to make theirs, that is Tatamagouche Bay or Brule, there is no doubt that the Intercolonial or the Dominion Atlantic Railway would build down, as has been mooted for many years, from Truro to Brule, a distance of 35 miles, giving the most direct route between Prince Edward Island, up through the Annapolis Valley and Yarmouth, to one of our principal markets, Boston, a much shorter route than the present. It would be fifteen miles shorter to Halifax. We do not do much business with Halifax now, though we ought to. It is one of the places with which we ought to do more business, perhaps, than any other, because it is on the route between us and Great Britain, the steamers to the old country sailing from Halifax. We ought to do a laTge business in that way, both by steamer and by rail.

We do some business by schooner, but we are su handicapped in other ways that our business with Halifax is crippled. The mute I propose would, to a large extent at least, remedy the state of affairs I have referred to, and, by making the means of communication better, would, as such changes always do, increase the trade and travel which is carried on.
Now, I wish to refer hon. gentlemen back to the ice-breaking conditions that existed this year when we had the steamer on which our mails are carried stopped several times. I have here a report from Captain John Gillis and Captain C. E. Myers, master mariners, made to the board of trade.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Who are these gentlemen, and where do they live?


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: Captain Gillis has been living in Charlottetown for twenty or thirty years, and Captain Myers for fifteen or sixteen years. Their report is addressed to Mr. James Paton, president of the Charlottetown board of trade. It is dated March 16, 1909, and the part relating to the subject under discussion is as follows:
Having been commissioned by you in your capacity as president of the board of trade, to secure data of the conditions of the ioe between this harbour and Point Prim, we beg to report as follows:-
We began our survey of the ice in the harbour this morning, and found open -water from Murphy's point (red buoy) to Trout point at harbour's mouth. At the latter place, in range with Brighton light ranges (ship's course), we found open water 12 fathoms deep. Prom that point we proceeded due south 100 yards with only 4 inches of ice; continuing on same course another 100 yards we found 6 inches of ice with 12 fathoms of water. We kept on the same course for 150 yards and found 8 inches of ice alongside a vein of open water in channel. We then made a circuit around the open water a distance of 150 about yards, estimated-the ice being too dangerous to carry us for actual measurement-and came in line with the range lights and again found 6 inches of ice with 11 fathoms of water. Proceeding 200 yards on the ranges (about south) we got 4 inches of ice and 10 fathoms of water. Continuing on ship's course seaward 200 yards we measured 5 inches of ice and sounded 11 fathoms of water. On the same course and distance we found 4 inches of ice and unsafe to take soundings. Ice from this point unsafe to continue in channel to St. Peter's island bar, consequently we left the centre of the channel and proceeded to the east edge of same until we came to 6 fathoms of water and found 4 inches of ice. We continued on south by west in order to get into deeper water for a distance of 400 yards. Here the ice was parted in line with Lowthers' point, south shore, and Pownal Head. Beyond this it was unsafe to proceed any further for the ice was only 2 inches thick.
We found open water from the black buoy extending seaward past St. Peter's Island bar, Point Prim, and as far seaward as we could see with glasses.
From our survey we are in a position to state there is no ice from Point Prim to Charlottetown to hinder a steamer making this port. In fact, following the ship's course from the three tides out, the ice mentioned in the foregoing report was of such a nature as not to present a serious obstacle to many of our summer boats.
And at this time, or a little while afterwards, our mails were stopped by ice on the Charlottetown-Pietou route. And the same happens every year. At this period of the session I do not propose to take up more time than can be avoided in discussing the matter, important as it is to us, as you can understand, Mr. Speaker. I wish to urge it upon the attention of the House and of the government, and also upon the Department of Marine and Fisheries to cause a further survey to be made of the harbour on the mainland at Tatamagouche bay, or Brule, with a view, if found feasible, to remedy the disability under which we are labouring and of having the summer and winter route, instead of between Charlottetown and Pic-tou, between Charlottetown and Brule. And I may say,_ in confirmation of my contention that this is the best route for summer as well as winter, that away back half a century ago the steamers from Charlottetown did go to Brule and not to Pictou. But when the railway was carried !down to Pictou and not to Brule, the steamers went were they could get the accommodation. But were the railway built to Brule, or Cape John on Tatamagouche bay, the steamers would be running there still, because that is the most direct route to the other provinces. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of this House for the attention they have given me, and I commend this matter to their consideration.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I crave the attention of the House for a short time while I refer to a matter especially in reference to my own constituency. I congratulate my hon. friend (Mr. Warburton) on having made the best of a very poor case in the interest of his own constituency. I do not think my hon. friend took in the whole situation either in the Island from which he comes or in the surrounding circumstances, and I fear that his judgment, usually very clear and lucid, was, in this particular instance, somewhat clouded by a vision which is limited to the needs of the particular constituency from which he came. I am quite sure that my hon. friends who represent the constituencies from Prince Edward Island other than the county of Queens will be found disagreeing with my hon. friend in the views he has urged as to the best route for maintaining winter communication with Prince Edward Island and as to the difficulties or evils involved in

other routes which he discussed. I think I may be permitted to point out that the question as to the best and only route between Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia was settled years ago, by the gentlemen interested in business in Prince Edward Island, who maintained steam communication between the Island and the mainland. The men who invested their money in the Prince Edward Island Navigation Company, and maintained that company for many years, selected the port of Pictou as the best port on the mainland with which they could maintain communications, and this communication has been maintained ever since. At no time did any person propose to spend money on the idea or theory that communication could be maintained between Charlottetown and Tat-amagouche bay. It was not until two years ago that people, not in Prince Edward Island, but in Colchester, interested in the construction of a railway from Truro to Tatamagouche concluded that it would be a wise thing as aiding in the booming of their railway proposition, to talk up the idea of maintaining by this route communication with Charlottetown. That is the idea of my hon. friend to-day, and, carrying out purely and solely the views of his own constituency, he put forward his theory and has made, as I have said, the best of a bad case. As against the route between Charlottetown and Pictou, he has told us that the ice grounds on the bottom at the entrance to Pictou harbour. One would fancy the autumn wind blew always from the north-east down through the straits of Belle Isle, and that all the ice in the gulf between Belle Isle and Anticosti was piled up before Pictou harbour and grounded hard on the bottom. That was the impression made on my mind by my hon. friend's argument. He was hardly candid in that because he knows that the condition to which he refers is quite phenomenal. I have lived in Pictou all my life and I know that in only two or three winters in the last forty years has such a condition arisen. My hon. friend can hardly with fairness base an argument in favour of one or other route upon an accidental circumstance of that kind. This question has been threshed out m parliament year after year; gentlemen who were in the last parliament must have felt that it had been discussed by the hon. gentleman's predecessors until it was pretty well settled. Year after year the House came to the conclusion that the route which we had used for so many years was the most practicable one and gave the best satisfaction. The hon. gentleman's argument is based on the theory that it might be possible to have communication with the Island every day in the year. He says that on the day on which the steamers stopped running between Georgetown and Pictou this year the two captains went down to the mouth of the harbour at Charlottetown Mr. E. M. MACDONALD.
and found there was open water and that a boat could have got through. He should also have said that if the captains had gone down the next day they would have found the mouth of Charlottetown harbour absolutely blocked and packed clear to


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: No, they would not.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. gentleman knows that the ice conditions in those waters change in a night.


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: I say they would not have found Charlottetown harbour closed at that time or at any time this winter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Of course I would not contradict my hon. friend's personal statement, but it is a serious thing that the men in control of these winter steamers, who should know all about this thing and should have no prejudice in the matter, found it necessary to leave Charlottetown early in the season because it was impossible to carry on communication with that port. These theories are advanced by men who advocate rival routes, but we see the men in charge of this service leaving Charlottetown before Christmas practically every year and going to Georgetown. We might get reams of evidence from engineers or captains interested about this, that or the other port, but the men who have had charge of these steamers for thelast ten or fifteen years know the conditions better than anyone else and we all know that they would not leave Charlottetown if it was possible to enter that harbour. I think my hon. friend's argument is not based on any evidence which is entitled to the serious consideration of the department. He is rather weak about the connection he is to make on the mainland side. He tells ns that by the route he has suggested a man could leave Charlottetown, come to Brule, ctq on to Halifax and return to Prince Edward Island the same night. If he had some addition to his plan in the way of a flying machine this promise might be realized, but not otherwise, because those of us who live on the mainland can go to Halifax and return on the same day onlv with great difficulty, and I am quite sure it could not be done from the island. We heard the member for Prince the other night saying that what was desired in that county was to have steamers running from Summerside to Pictou as well as from Charlottetown to Pictou. The people on the west end of the island take that view and we know that the people in King's county, Prince Edward Island, are anxious to have the present^ system maintained. My hon. friend s position in this matter is local, his request is based on the requirement of one part of the island and is not of such a character as should be entertained. The present route was selected as the best when the service was inaugurate

ed and has been maintained all these years. We have terminals at both ends of the route and a comparatively satisfactory service, having regard to the severity of the winter. It is physically impossible to have a steamer run daily owing to snowstorms and other conditions, and as my hon. friend's proposition would involve a tremendous expenditure for dredging on the mainland at Tata-magouche bay and for terminals and would still be an experiment, I submit that it would be inadvisable to embark upon such an experiment. The experience of the last half century shows that the present route is the most satisfactory and with the improved steamers which this government has supplied and the new icebreaker which is to be added to the fleet, the service between Georgetown and Pictou will certainly be the most satisfactory that can be provided under any circumstances and the government would be making a most serious mistake if they departed from their line of policy in regard to this matter, which has been followed by both governments and both political parties.


Mr. A. L. FRASER (Kings, P.E.I.).: Mr. Speaker, I am entirely in accord with the sentiments expressed by the last sepaker. I am sure the government will hesitate before making a change from the present established route of the winter steamers. As the last speaker has said, it would only be an experiment and it might be a very costly experiment to change the Georgetown-Pictou route to any new Toute. It is true, and it is admitted by all parties, that Georgetown is the best winter terminal on Prince Edward Island. Souris is also a good winter harbour, but it is some distance further from the mainland and the people of Souris have not yet expressed a desire to disturb the present winter route. But while Georgetown is the best winter harbour on the island. we cannot claim that Pictou is the best port on the mainland. The trouble with the winter service is at Pictou. If the department would make any experiment which could give a better harbour on the mainland, it would be a great advantage, but we do not want an experiment made when we have one good harbour and until we are assured of getting a better one, we had better keep to the one we have. What the mover of the resolution (Mr. Warbur-ton) has said concerning summer navigation is quite correct, it would give a shorter distance from Charlottetown to Pictou, but as the steam navigation company some years ago _ decided on the present route, I think it would be a waste of money for this government to make any experiment to divert travel from the present established route. We on the island have great difficulty and 205
are put to great expense because of what we call the three short hauls. Whatever route is chosen, I think we will have these three short hauls.
I will say that 75 per cent of the people of the island are interested in the tunnel, a question which has been before this House for many years. As I said before, we do not want a tunnel if it is not feasible or if it is impracticable. What we are asking now is that a sum, sufficient to have a survey made, be placed in the esti- r mates. A survey was started, I think, in 1895, but that survey was not completed.
It was undertaken by the Conservative government. I am informed, this government afterwards put engineers on the report of that survey to find out approximately what the cost of the tunnel would be, and I understand that they estimated that the 'tunnel would not cost more than $10,000,000. We have had assurance of the Minister of Finance and of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that if the tunnel would only cost $10,000,000 we were entitled to it. The construction of the tunnel would save the three short hauls with the additional cost of transporting passengers and freight for all time to come. If it would only cost $10,000,000 wc think the province is entitled to it. Seventy-five per cent of the people of Prince Edward Island require this matter to be settled one way or the other and the only way to satisfy the people there is to have a proper survey made and then a report presented as to the cost of the tunnel. If it will be out of proportion to what they expect, if it will cost, as has been said by some people, $150,000,000, or even a quarter of that, we would not ask for it because the expenditure might not be justified. But what I wish to urge upon the government is that they may see their way clear to put a certain sum in the estimates to have this survey made and have this tunnel question settled. If this were done we would hear no more about the tunnel, but until it is done a large percentage of the people of Prince Edward Island will be continually asking for the tunnel, as they believe it is the only solution of the question. We do not want anything that is unreasonable. We want the terms of confederation to be carried out as far as possible and when we are asking for this sum to be voted for the purpose of making a survey I do not think we are asking anything unreasonable. Until that is done we will feel that we cannot get continuous communication and that the terms of confederation have not been carried out. If this survey were made and the cost stated we would know whether or not it would be feasible to build the tunnel.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, I want to



say only a few words on the question which has been raised by my hon. friend from Queens, Prince Edward Island, (Mr. War-burton) concerning winter communication between Prince Edward Island and the mainland. This question, as has been stated by my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Macdonald), has been before the House for some time and has been fully discussed on several occasions. But, this is the first time that the question raised by my hon. , friend from Queens, as to communication between Brule and Charlottetown has been definitely before the House. The means of communication to-day between the mainland and the island are, I think, generally satisfactory. Several attempts were made in former years to improve the service and at the present time, as my hon. friend is aware and as he has stated in his speech, we are building an ice breaker of '6,000 horse-power which, I think, will be strong enough to cope -with any situation that may present itself there; so much so that in the contract which has been made with a most reputable firm in England, the Vickers, Sons & Maxim, there is a guarantee by the contractors that this boat will be able to pass through any floating ice even if it amounts to 15 feet in thickness. This boat will be available for the service next fall and I expect that it will be able to cope with any situation. Sometimes the ice near Pietou island grounds and then it is almost impossible for any boat to pass through. But this is a very exceptional circumstance and I am not aware that this year the service has been delayed for any length of time. The difficulty which has been experienced on the main part of the Northumberland strait is occasioned by the quantity of ice which floats through the strait. I know that in 1901, 1902 and 1903, some experiments were made to ascertain if you could make use of the Cape Tormen-tine-Cape Traverse route. It was found that the quantity of ice which formed in that part of the strait, and the same condition,
I understand, will be found also between Charlottetown and Brule, was so great that it was absolutely impossible to keep that route open during the whole of the winter.
I think that during three consecutive years, 1901, 1902 and 1903, these efforts were made in that direction but they did not result in success for the reason which I have just stated. I do not know whether my hon. friend who is better informed on the matter than I am will confirm my information, but I am informed that on the route between Charlottetown and Brule we will find almost the same quantity of ice and the same difficulty which is met with on the route between Cape Tormentine and Cape Traverse.


Alexander Bannerman Warburton: Between Cape Traverse and Tormentine where it is eight Mr. BRODEUR.
miles wide, there is a current of three miles an hour. But when you get to the Brule-Charlottetown route you get a width of 25 miles where the tide is only running half a mile an hour. Consequently there is not the same quantity of ice and there is not the same difficulty.


Mr BRODEUR.: At the same time the quantity of ice which is there, I understand, is very large and would result in a great deal of difficulty. I do not say that it is impracticable, but I say that the experience 'we have had in running boats from Charlottetown to Pietou does not encourage the department to hope that we would be successful there. In fact, for a few days at the beginning of the winter we opened the route between Charlottetown and Pietou, but we had to leave that route and to go between Georgetown and Pietou. The only difficulty that exists upon the route between Georgetown and Pietou is that in some very exceptional cases the ice grounds near the island and it becomes almost impossible for the boat to pass through. But I claim that the new boat which we are constructing will probably be able to pass through all the ice and remove the disabilities of the situation. The House is well aware that if, under the exceptional circumstances, the service ceases between Georgetown and Pietou, we have, between Cape Traverse and Cape Tormentine, some little boats which cross over and carry the mails everyday. I think that upon the whole all governments have tried to do their best in order to provide a better service and to carry out the obligations which we incurred when Prince Edward Island became part of the confederation. The Dominion government engaged themselves to maintain steam communication between the island and the mainland. I need not refer to the conditions which existed before confederation, but we all know that the service between the island and the mainland then was far from being as satisfactory as it is to-day, and that in fact the only winter communication was by these small boats which we still maintain for use on the exceptional occasions when the steamers are unable to cross. My remarks should not be interpreted as meaning that the question which has been submitted by mv hon. friend (Mr. Warburton) will not be carefully considered; for I am of opinion that we should satisfy public opinion in that respect. Speaking for myself personally I am not very favourable to the idea of changing the route, unless, indeed, observations and inquiry can show that the route suggested by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Warburton) is better than that which now exists. We must, however, remember that the proposed route would be difficult

and expensive. It would be necessary to connect the Oxford branch railway with the harbour of Brule and wharfs, lighthouses, and fog alarms, would have to be supplied. I also think that some additional improvements -would have to be made in Charlottetown harbour. Our experience on the St. Lawrence is that it is dangerous to try and make harbours during the winter months where the channel is very narrow, because if there is a snow flurry when a steamer is entering such a harbour the pilot looses his bearings and an accident may follow as was the case recently on the St. Lawrence. That feature of it must be. considered also. Some criticism has been directed against Captain Brown and Captain Finlayson, the captains of the ' Minto ' and the ' Stanley.' I may say that these captains have been directed by the department that they should be the absolute judges as to the routes to be taken and in that Tespect we have given them a great deal of latitude. There is always a great deal of difference of opinion in matters of this kind, and we thought the best way was to be guided entirely by the opinion of these two experienced navigators. Captain Brown and Captain Finlayson enjoy the well-deserved reputation of being good sailors. Unfortunately they are ageing, but I hope their services will be retained for some time because they have always been able to cope with the difficulties of the situations which presented themselves and have been able to avoid accidents. I believe that Captains Brown and Finlayson deserve to be complimented on their work, and in saying that I know I am voicing the sentiments of every member of this House who knows them. I may say in conclusion that I shall be very glad to have the necessary observations taken in order to decide as to whether the route suggested by the hon. gentleman would be practicable.


TRADE WITH AUSTRALIA-DIRECT STEAMERS FROM EASTERN CANADA.
Mr. J. G. TURRIFF (Assiniboia).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I desire for a few moments to bring to the attention of the House the question of improving the facilities for trade between Canada and Australia and New Zealand. For some years past there has been a very fair volume of trade transacted between Canada and Australia and New Zealand, and I am glad to say it is an ever growing trade. One good feature about it is that we export from Canada two or three times the quantity of goods that we import from these countries. But at present we are labouring under very great disadvantages and my object in bringing this matter up now is not
,	205i
that the government will take any action so near at the end of the session, but that the matter may be considered by the government and the members of the House in the meantime, and in the hope that by next session the government may decide to give a subsidy for two or three years to establish a line of steamers between the eastern ports of Canada and Australia and New Zealand. At present we subsidize two lines of steamers between Canada and Australia both from Vancouver, one being practically altogether a mail service and the other a freight boat service which last year earned a little over $40,000 out of the total subsidy of $50,000 allotted. But, every member of the House will see that it is almost impossible to ship goods via Vancouver,
3.000	miles by rail, the great majority of Canadian manufacturing establishments being at present located in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, and the lower provinces. The subsidies which we give to the freight steamers from Vancouver are doing a certain amount of good and have resulted in quite a large quantity of lumber being shipped from the Pacific coast. There are only two or three classes of manufactured goods that you can ship to advantage over
3.000	miles of rail and thence across the Pacific to Australasia. The great bulk of our trade from Canada to Australia and New Zealand at the present time goes via New York, and it is because of this very fact that our manufacturers and our merchants are at considerable disadvantages. We are all anxious, so far as we reasonably can to improve the condition of our manufacturers and our merchants, and while many of us may be opposed to helping them by increasing the duties, yet we can all agree that by the means which I now suggest their position will be improved and that a fine class of trade would be developed between Canada and Australasia. Let me point out that the trade is there waiting for us. Those engaged in trade in Australasia will tell you that all we have to do to get their trade is to show that we can deliver the same class of goods at the same price as they obtain them from the United States. If Canadians can do that, then the sentiment in favour of trade within the empire will give Canadian goods the preference every time. We must place ourselves in a position to compete with our American neighbours for that trade. We export something like $3,000,000 worth of goods to Australasia and New Zealand while the United States is expropriating $30,000,000 worth. These are of a class of goods which can only be obtained in the United States and Canada so that the United States is the only competitor Canada has to meet in the Australasian market. The question remains as to how we can put our manufacturers and our merchants in a position to reasoi*-ably well compete with the Americans. It

has been proposed that if a subsidy were given by the Canadian government for three years for the purpose of establishing a line of steamers with Australia and New Zealand, plying to Quebec and Montreal in the summer and to Halifax and St. John in the winter, we would so establish that trade that at the end of three years there would be no necessity for any further subsidy.
Let me point out some of the disadvantages that our manufacturers and exporters labour under at the present time. As I have said, practically all our goods have to be shipped through the port of New York. To begin wtih, our manufacturers are located farther from New York than the average American manufacturer. They pay more for railway freight to New York, then they have to pay the heavy New York harbour charges and the transportation charges from the railway station to the steamship. All these things place them at a disadvantage as compared with the American manufacturer. Then, all the goods for Australia and New Zealand are carried by American steamship lines, which are controlled by American manufacturers, who see to whom every pound of goods is consigned, and endeavour to secure from the purchasers the next order. But that is not the greatest disadvantage our people are up against. The worst of all is this. These American lines of steamships have been put on for the purpose of promoting trade between the United States and Australia and New Zealand, and they advertise certain sailings during the year. There are not regular sailings, which is always a disadvantage to the shipper. But very often there is more freight offered for a certain boat than it can carry, and no matter at what time the Canadian goods arrive in New York, it is they which are left over, with the result that the consignee in Australia is disappointed and tne Canadian exporter has all the more difficulty in doing business. If we had our own line of steamers sailing from Montreal and Quebec in summer and from Halifax and St. John in winter, this disadvantage to our manufacturers would become an advantage, because they would be nearer the shipping port than to New York, and the goods would be put on the steamers at less cost than American goods -are put on American steamers, and, with equal freight rates, they would be in a fair position to compete.
I have the authority of a firm who are doing the largest export trade in Canada to Australia and New Zealand, and who represent very many of our Canadian manufacturers, for saying that the Canadian maunfaeturer is quite able, both in price and quality of goods, to compete in the Australian and New Zealand markets with the American manufacturer in the same


John Gillanders Turriff: .
lines, that the Australians are quite satisfied with the goods they get from Canada, and that all they ask is to be supplied with the same class of goods at the same price, and they will give the Canadian goods the preference' every time. If that is a fair statement of the case, as I am assured and believe it is, is it not worth while for the government to look into the matter and see if, by giving a subsidy, we cannot bring about a very much improved condition of affairs? I have not the slightest doubt that under proper conditions Canada should be able to take at least one-half of the trade that goes from North America to Australia and New Zealand. If that were done, we would immediately increase our exports from a little over $3,000,000 up to $15,000,000. That would be worth while, and it could be done by a very small outlay in the way of subsidies to establish the route. The class of goods we send include iron -goods, boots and shoes, agricultural implements, and a great many other things. In New Zealand we have an advantage in the tariff, but not in Australia. While the matter was being considered, we could very well at the same time look into the question of trade with South Africa. A company called the Imperial Export Company a year or so ago sent a memorial to the different members proposing to establish a line of ships between Canada and Australia and New Zealand, to sail eight times during the year at stated periods, with vessels of a capacity of 6,000 tons of freight each. They would guarantee to provide freight for each of the sailings for three years, and unless they did that, they would forfeit the right to any subsidy. The amount they asked for was $250,000 a year for three years. I am not prepared to say whether that is a fair amount or not; but even if that amount were necessary to accomplish the object, I think it would be well worthy of the attention of the government. The matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Trade and Commerce, but I understand that that department did not consider it advisable to do anything along the line suggested, being contented with the subsidy that we were already giving for a line from Vancouver to Australia; but, as I have pointed out, that is of very little use to the manufacturers of Ontario and Quebec and the maritime provinces. The press of the country frequently emphasizes the desirability of increasing our foreign trade and opening up new markets. Here is one way in which that can be done without much cost to the country. I simply bring the matter up in order that the members may think of it between now and next session, and more especially that the government may take it into consideration, not
64V 3

to do anything this session, but in order that next session they may, if they think it advisable, put an amount in the estimates to establish a freight line of steamers between the easterly portion of Canada and Australia and New Zealand, and possibly include South Africa.


Mr. GEORGE TAYLOR (Leeds).: I am pleased to see that our friends who support the government are now favourable to subsidizing a line of steamships between Australia and Canada. There was a line subsidized by the late Conservative government, and I remember well how, during the elections of 1896, we were met on every platform throughout the country by a Grit stumper with a can of Australian mutton in his hand, which he held up to the people and condemned the government roundly for having subsidized a line from Vancouver to Australia to bring to this country Australian mutton. Well, when this government came into office, they continued the subsidies to that line, and now they want another line subsidized to bring Australian mutton to the maritime provinces.


John Gillanders Turriff: We are doing it so much better.


Mr. TAYLOR.: And the government can take credit for bringing in more Australian mutton. But how do they reconcile that with their denunciations of the same policy made ,on every platform? But whaft I rose particularly for was to draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to the condition of the grounds around the parliament buildings. They were bad enough in all conscience last year, but this year they are still worse. Take the hedges around the Hill a few years ago these were a thing of beauty, but this year they are -just the reverse. Half of them are dying, simply because they have not been kept watered. Take the Hill where the statue of the Queen is situated, all the evergreens there are withered for want of watering. In fact everywhere the grounds are run down and look as if the country were in a state of insolvency. When the hon. minister is next in Toronto, I would advise him to take a tour around the parliament grounds there and see in what order they are kept. Are our grounds kept by contract or day s labour?


William Pugsley: The care of the grounds is by day's labour.


James Davis Taylor: I thought so.


William Pugsley: We have a very good superintendent Mr. Shearer, who has charge of the grounds under the direction of the chief architect. I have personally given directions that greater care should be exercised, and I shall also now give further attention to the matter.


James Davis Taylor: We used to have a first class gardener in our time who had the work by contract and who kept the grounds in splendid condition. Now the work is done by day's labour. Just look at the flowers coming up, the ground plots look as if the chickens were allowed to run through them.
It is the result of bad bulbs being put in. We ought to have a first-class man looking after these grounds. We had them let by contract to the late Mr. Robertson, a professional gardener, and I leave it to the Prime Minister whether every spot then was not a pleasure to look at. Now we have a lot of farmers employed who know nothing about gardening and who let the verdure and the plants and the evergreens run down just for the want of watering them and taking intelligent care of them.


Mr. W. B. NANTEL (Terrebonne).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House, for a moment, upon an error or an oversight which I find in the statute of 1905, with regard to the increase of the judges' salaries, and which constitutes an injustice towards two of the jud'ges of the Supreme Court for the province of Quebec. I refer to fyhe judges for the districts of Chicoutimi and Saguenay and of Gaspe.
In 1905, when the hon. Minister of Justice introduced his resolutions, on which was based a Bill to increase the salaries of the judges, I find that the salaries of the judges for the above mentioned districts, have been fixed at $5,000. The following is that part of the resolution which concerns them :
Two junior judges of the said_ court, whose residence will be in the district of Bona-venture and Gaspd or of Saguenay, $5,000 each.
Their salaries, in fact, were the same as those of tlie judges in the rural districts of the province of Quebec. The same statement appeared in ' Hansard ' when the Bill in question was discussed.
I will now read a letter from the hon. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Sir Charles Fitzpatrick), who was then Minister of Justice, in which he writes as loi-lows to one of these judges [DOT]
Chief Justice's Room,
Suprertie Court of Canada.
Ottawa, February 27, 1908.


Honourable J.   A.@: Gagne,
Judge's Chamber,
Quebec.
My Dear Judge,-In answer to yours of February 26th, I do not hesitate to repeat that the well defined intention of the Department of Justice (and I believe at the time I had the approbation of the government), was to put all the judges of the rural districts on the same footing with regard to their salaries ; and when the resolutions were introduced in the House with the approbation of my colleagues, I had provided that the judges of Gaspe and Chicoutimi.

should receive each a salary of $5,000, and be on an equal footing with the others.
Later on a change that I am at a loss to account for, was made and I was firmly under the impression that I had given effect
ii "Iy intention, until my attention was called to the legislation as sanctioned by the government.
I had no occasion to see the Minister of Justice ; but you are authorized to tell him that I have never intentionally changed the item in question, that my intention has always being to give effect to the solemn pledge given Justice Carroll, when he accepted the judgeship in Gaspe ,that the salary of the judge of said district would be the same as the salary of judges in the other rural districts.
Concerning your district,, there is no reason for the difference in the salary. I know few judges who have, in their districts, as much important cases as you haie.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed). C. FITZPATRICK.
As I just said a while ago, I read over in the ' Hansard ' the discussion which took place on that question, and I saw that their salary was fixed at $5,000. How is it that later on, when the legislation was passed, that salary has been put down at $4,500, instead of $5,000, as it appears now in the Revised Statutes, chap. 138 ?
If it is hy reason of an error, it seems to me that the government should take immediate steps to rectify it, for the law as it now stands, is highly detrimental to the interest of the judges of these two districts.


Mr.  M. E.@: ROY". (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I concur entirely in the views presented by the hon. member for Terrebonne. I have a pretty good knowledge of these two districts, particularly the district of Gaspe. I was always astonished to see that discrimination against the judges of those districts. Formerly a reason might have existed for such discrimination, because there were fewer terms during the year, and consequently, the judges had less to do. But for several years past, those judges are called upon to discharge duties quite as arduous and numerous as those of the judges of the other districts. It is my sincere conviction that a mistake was made, and the sooner it will be rectified the better, so as to put an end to that baseless inequality.


MANITOBA FISHERIES.
Mr. G. H. BRADBURY (Selkirk).: I wish to draw the attention of the House to a statement regarding the fisheries of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. This is a very important question to a large number of mv constituents, who are interested in the fishing industry, as well as to the other residents of these two provinces. It is important to my own constituency from the fact that a large number of my constituents depend for a livlihood upon the fisheries


Wilfrid Bruno Nantel: and important to the other residents of the two provinces from the fact that the manipulations of the American combine have increased the cost of fish to nearly double what it ought to be. Some fifteen or eighteen years ago those who knew lake Winnipeg and its wonderful resources were wont to boast that we had in that province the greatest whitefish fishery in the world, which promised an abundant supply of fish for all time to come for Manitoba and the other provinces of the west. Early in the seventies, a large number of icelandic settlers were attracted to that lake largely on account of this great fishery. These people settled along the southwest shore of Lake Winnipeg, and, at that time, found no difficulty in obtaining white-fish in large quantities in the southern part of the lake. They secured all the fish they required for domestic use and to supply at that time the market of Manitoba. This afforded these people plenty of food ready at their doors and promised a great future industry to the settlers, an industry from which these people, no doubt, expected to reap great benefit. But unfortunately for their hopes and for our great fisheries, the large commercial interests that had already depleted the fisheries in the lakes of Ontario were not long in scenting out this great fishery on Lake Winnipeg; and, as early as 1881, just as soon as railroad communication made it possible, we find these interests getting ready for the work of destruction which they have just about completed in that great lake at the present time. Mr. D. F. Reid and Mr. Clark, of Oollingwood, were the pioneer fishermen of that day. Mr. Reid is one of the commissioners appointed to investigate the fisheries at this time. In 1881, he and Mr. Clark established operations on the south end of the lake and had no difficulty in securing an abundant supply of whitefish for the market at that time. In 1885 they put on a steam tug, and in one season put up 150 tons of fish -with a very small plant. This was the commencement of the export of whitefish from Manitoba. As soon as our fish reached the Chicago market, the great American interests were not long in realizing that there was magnificent whitefish in the western provinces. In . 1886 we find established in that lake what was called the Manitoba Fish Company. But in reality it was an American concern, 96 per cent of the stock being owned or controlled by gentlemen living in Detroit. This company started operations in a big way. They had one or two steamers and a couple of tugs. They had their large freezers, one at Swamp island, one at Little Saskatchewan, and another at Selkirk. For two years this company, with the pioneer fish company, Reid and Clark, took from 1,200 to 1,500 tons of fish in that lake, nearly all of which were
exported to Chicago and other American cities. These fish were cleaned and frozen as soon as taken out of the water and held in freezers until the winter and shipped out of the province during the winter season. The fish at that time averaged from 44 to 6 pounds each. The men who caught the fish, our settlers, Icelanders principally, received from the American interests 14 cents a fish. When I tell you that these same fish retailed on the markets of Chicago and other American cities for ten cents and twelve cents per pound, you will realize the _ immense profit that accrued to this American interest. As early as 1890, the possibility of the depletion of this great lake became apparent. Representations were made to the Department of Fisheries here by prominent men in Manitoba and by the settleis engaged in the business on Lake Winnipeg. Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper, then Minister of Marine and Fisheries, was induced to send a commissioner to that province to make investigation. He instructed Mr. Wilmot, who was Jthen commissioner, to proceed to Manitoba and make a thorough investigation of this question. I have in my hand the report made by Mr. Wilmot, and, for the information of the House and for the information of the minister, who, I know, is a very busy man, and not likely to have time to read these ' great reports," I intend to read a few passages:
Ottawa, October, 1890.


The Hon.   C@: Tupper,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Sir -Having received instructions from you to go to Manitoba to examine into the condition of Lake Winnipeg fisheries, covering the grounds mentioned in certain correspondence regarding the alleged depletion of wnitetisn, and to investigate other matters connected therewith; and having carefully read the numerous tiles of correspondence, relating to tile above subject, which have passed between the Departments of the Interior and of the 1' lsh-eries; and also having personally visited some of the most important fishing stations on Lake Winnipeg, mentioned in the aforesaid correspondence, I beg to report, for the information of your department, the following views which I entertain and the conclusions I have formed on the subject matter under consideration.
Lake Winnipeg lies partly in the two provinces of Manitoba and Keewatin. It is the largest and most important body of water in these provinces, with an area of some 9,550 square miles. Its extreme length takes in about 27U miles, and its greatest width is about 70 miles. It runs in a line nearly north and south, the southern half of the lake is very narrow, and largely cut up with small bays and inlets, anti filled with numerous islands. The northern *or upper half opens out to a width of some bO miles, and covers nearly three-fourths ot the ' whole area of the lake.
The principal product from Lake Winnipeg is the famous highly-priced whitefish, coregonus albus which, for domestic and commercial purposes, no doubt stands foremost on the list of fresh water fishes in America. These fish have been, and no doubt are yet, quite numerous in Lake Winnipeg, although it is held by many persons, and truly so, that in certain localities a depletion is already felt from the wholesale methods of fishing practised by certain fishing companies, who carry on this industry quite extensively almost wholly for the United States markets.
Much controversy has arisen regarding this alleged excessive fishing in Lake Winnipeg between these fishing companies and leading inhabitants of Manitoba, and also with the settlers and Indian tribes around the lake, which has culminated to such a degree at last as to call for the serious consideration of the Departments of the Fisheries, and of the Interior to investigate this matter from a disinterested and public standpoint, not only with regard to the above issues, but also in the interests of the general public.
It is therefore of vital importance to all concerned that some practical solution should be reached by which, if possible, the fishing industries of Lake Winnipeg should not be speedily impoverished, but should be maintained as a source of wealth, and luxury for the inhabitants generally of Manitoba, both for the present and future.
r *#*###
There are several separate interests connected with the fisheries of Lake Winnipeg which are dealt upon somewhat lengthily in the departmental correspondence referred to- each claiming that the views held by them are the correct ones, in so far as the question of depletion of the whitefish in the lake is concerned. These different interests may be classed as follows:-
1.	The Indian tribes under the control of the Department of the Interior claim that, many parts of the lake which formerly supplied them with the requisite abundance of fish-food are now showing depletion by reason of the excessive and wholesale fishing carried on by certain large fishing corporations,
2.	Prominent officials and leading citizens of Manitoba also represent that Lake Winnipeg is undergoing a falling off in many localities of its former whitefish crop, and that, therefore, means should be instituted to stay this too rapid destruction of fish by judicious regulations, which, whilst protecting the fish, will not too seriously interfere with the fishing industries of the country.
####*#
First.-" The Indians, and the interests of the Department of the Interior, '
Voluminous evidence is given in the correspondence showing quite conclusively that the Indians on some of the reserves around Lake Winnipeg are jsufiering (from the want of their former supplies of whitefish, which in past years were obtained readily and in great abundance; and notable instances are related where waters which at one time were teeming with these fish have now become very scarce, and fears are entertained that the usual supplies of fish-food for the Indians will soon be at an end, and that this has been brought about by over-fishing at the mouths of rivers by fish traders, who are permitted to carry on this excessive fishing regardless of consequences. It is also represented that unless this

reckless system of fishing be discontinued these Indians, who are the wards of the government, will have to he supported by other ln*aJi3 from the publio funds of the country.
These are no doubt pressing facts, and must be so considered from an uninterested and practical comprehension of the state of affairs as they now exist. It is therefore expedient that the government should meet this subject in the spirit of reciprocity; as between the requirements of the Indian, the settler and the fish trader each have their rights and are entitled to full consideration as inhabitants of the country.
******
. Second.-The statements made by prominent individuals and leading inhabitants of Manitoba are, that over-fishing of the whitefish in Lake Winnipeg is being experienced, and is steadily increasing, and that it should be stayed, in the interests both of the present and incoming inhabitants of Manitoba-and the Northwest, and that the whitefish industry should be studiously husbanded. This advocacy for the preservation of the fishing wealth in Lake Winnipeg by the leading inhabitants of Manitoba should be sustained by the Department of Fisheries, in order to prevent a repetition of said experiences which are now felt in many of the waters in the eastern provinces, where over-fishing has brought depletion to such an extent as to be almost wholly beyond recovery.
******
Formerly this industry was pursued in the lower or southern parts of the lake; but the catch becoming much lessened there the fish traders have established themselves about midway up the lake, and at Selkirk island, at the head of the lake. The principal points for their operations at present are at Beren's island, Reindeer island, and the mouth of the Little Saskatchewan river, about midway of the lake, and at Selkirk island, near the mouth of the Big Saskatchewan, at the north c v" j Other places may be only temporarily fashed; but the above named localities form the present headquarters of the fishing companies.
. -tt Beren's island a good natural harbour is formed on the southern side. Here the two principal firms have each extensive ice-houses and freezing-houses, also landing piers for their steam-tugs and barges; similar works, but less extensive are at Reindeer island and at oelkirk island. But the most extensive buildings and works are just at the mouth of the Little Saskatchewan river, where two companies each have large ice-houses, freezers and piers on either side of the mouth of this river, which is only about 100 yards wide.
The present mode of fishing by the companies is with gill-nets, which are fished at certain distances off the shores of these islands, varying from one to six and ten miles, according to the ' running ' of the whitefish, as it is termed.
******
If severe storms prevail, which is very often the case in the open lakes, these nets cannot in many cases be lifted until the winds subside, which may not be for several days, in which case the fish in the meantime die, partial decomposition sets in, and they become unfit for use, and the whole catch, sometimes amounting to many thousands, are thrown away. Great destruction is caused in this wav and


George Henry Bradbury: a question has arisen whether it would not be better to do away with the gill net and substitute the pound or trap net under certain regulations, as the pound net would not only save the fish which are lost by the gill nets, but would also raise the standard of the whitefish generally in the markets of the country; whereas it is now somewhat lowered by the many fish which are offered for sale that are unwholesome for food, by reason of the blemished fish whose injuries and defects are hidden by the freezing process. The pound net would no doubt be very acceptable to the fishing companies generally, not only to obviate the difficulties above mentioned, but on account of being less expensive in their general working.
The quantity of gill nets set in Lake Winnipeg in 1889 covered about 60 miles in length. These gill nets, though apparently small, and averaging but 6 feet in depth, are nevertheless from their many miles in length where set, very deadly engines, and capable of causing great havoo in circumscribed limits, such as small bays and rivers. As an evidence of this it may be stated here that in Lake Winnipeg, where only three fishing companies are carrying on the fishing trade, the quantity of white-fish reported to be shipped by one firm alone in 1889 amounted to 9,000 boxes of 130 pounds each, making 1,170,000 pounds, the other two companies making up a similar amount, thus showing that this small number of traders are capable, with the present improved methods of fishing, of capturing upwards of two and a quarter millions of pounds of white-fish in Lake Winnipeg during one short season alone, the greater portion of which passed directly out of the province, causing the home consumption of Manitoba and ether parts of the country to be only sparsely supplied, and at high prices.
******
This taking of upwards of two and a quarter millions of pounds of whitefish by these fishing companies in Lake Winnipeg, more particularly that portion of the catch taken at the mouth of the Little Saskatchewan river, must, in the common sense reasoning of things, go to show, that originally intended balance of nature regarding these fish is being largely interfered with, and to such an extent if continued, as to cause well grounded alarm for a rapid decline of the whitefish industries connected with Lake Winnipeg, and many of the tributary waters belonging to it. And it must be understood, also, that the above described quantities of whitefish only include those taken by these three fishing companies operating in Beren's, Reindeer and Selkirk islands, and at the Little Saskatchewan river, irrespective altogether of the supplies that are caught by all other fishermen, Indians and settlers in other parts of the lake during the whole fishing season of the year.
******
The following questions relating to the whitefish fisheries in Lake Winnipeg being submitted for my consideration are herewith answered seriatim:-
1. Whether there really exists a depletion of whitefish in the waters of Lake Winnipeg P There is a gradual but steady depletion of the whitefish product of Lake Winnipeg going on, from the effects of the present system of fishing in certain parts of the lake.

2.	If so, in what waters, and what are the
causes of it?	,
The depletion is experienced more particularly at the mouths of the larger rivers, and in the lower parts of the lake, particularly in the Little Saskatchewan river and St. Martin's lake, caused by over-fishing at improper times, notably at the mouth and bay of the Little Saskatchewan river. This cause, if permitted to be continued here, and to be allowed in other places similarly situated in other parts of the lake, must assuredly hasten rapid depletion and eventually termination of the whitefish industry of Lake Winnipeg.
3.	What are the remedies?
The remedies are to reasonably restrict the wholesale fishing now carried on by the fishing companies, by judicious regulations, and to wholly prevent these companies, and others, from fishing in certain well known localities, where the whitefish congregate in great numbers prior to the close season and preparatory to their breeding time.
Mr. Wilmot, who was then the Commissioner of Fisheries, reported that if these companies were allowed to continue taking such great quantities of fish out of the lake each year the waters would surely be depleted. After the evidence contained in this report and the findings of the commission it would be only reasonable to assume that the Fishery Department would have seen to it that fishing on the scale then in vogue would have been checked. Instead of that we find that these large commercial companies were allowed to increase their operations and instead of two fishing companies there were four or five large commei-mercial companies operating in that lake. The result is, as Mr. Wilmot predicted, that the lake is rapidly becoming depleted of fish.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is my hon. friend not aware that the recommendations contained in that report were adopted by the department?


George Henry Bradbury: No, the recommendations in that Teport were not adopted. Some of the recommendations were adopted, but the chief recommendation, that commercial fishing should be checked, was not adopted. The recommendation as to defining the boundaries where commercial fishing should be allowed was adopted, but even that has been violated by the fishing companies within the last two years by fishing in Playgreen lake.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
panies. I will not weary the House by reading the full statement but will content myself with making one or two quotations from this statement and, with your permission, I will hand the statement in to ' Hansard.'
Whitefish Whitefish Sturgeon Lake shipped from Winnipeg. Manitoba.
Lbs. Lbs. Lib.
1890	 1892	 1892	.... 2,250,000 .... 3,058,790 . 3,873,000		
1894..	.. 2,370,000		
1895		.... 2,659,000		
1896..	.. 3,470,860		
1897	. .. 3,270,000		
1898	.. .. 2,537,000		
1899	.... 1,998,000	3,499,520	444,7871900	.... 3,895,000	5,843,000	981,5001901	.... 5,000,000	7,276,000	600,0001902	.. .. 6,000,000	7,914,500	600,0001903	.... 7,000,000	9,100,000	600,0001904	
6,000,000	8,800,000	600,0001905	.... 6,500,000	8,000,500	600,0001906	
5,000,000	6,136,000	325,0001907	
2,000,000	3,695,000	177,000
In 1892, when Mr. Wilmot, the then commissioner, made his report, they were taking 2,250,000 lbs. of white fish out of Lake Winnipeg. Mr. Wilmot at that time pointed out clearly that if this continued, within a very short time, Lake Winnipeg would be depleted. We might naturally have expected that the department at that time and since would have endeavoured to curtail the quantity of whitefish that was being killed in Lake Winnipeg, but, instead of that, we find that year after year this amount increased until, in 1903, there were 7,000,000 lbs of whitefish taken out of Lake Winnipeg by the American fish combine. In all during these seventeen years this American combine took out of this lake about 68,000,000 lbs. of whitefish and there was a total shipment from the province of Manitoba of 84,000,000 lbs., the balance being taken out of Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipegosis. In addition to that there were 5,329,000 lbs. of sturgeon. This valuable fish, I may say, is almost extinct in Lake Winnipeg. The lake has almost been depleted and the reason for that is that it takes a very long time for sturgeon to mature. It takes about twelve or thirteen years for a sturgeon to reach the weight of from 10 to 15 lbs. We have had sturgeon taken out of Lake Winnipeg that weighed 125 lbs.
After Recess.


David Henderson: How old are they?
House resumed at eight o'clock.


George Henry Bradbury: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was drawing the attention of the House to a statement of the quantity of whitefish taken out of Lake Winnipeg from 1890 to 1907 by the comercial com-


George Henry Bradbury: Some of them are seventy years of age.


David Henderson: That is a fishy story.


George Henry Bradbury: While these figures show the amount of fish put up by the large
64S3

American fish combines, they do not begin to account for the amount of fish killed by the methods employed by the American fish interests and by other commercial companies. It is well known that the method of fishing in Lake Winnipeg is by the gill net. We have had as much as sixty milels of gill net stretched in Lake Winnipeg at one time by these commercial companies. During the month of September we have as a rule, very stormy weather. There are days and days when the fishermen cannot visit the nets. The consequence is that the nets are killing fish all the time. Some of these nets are swept away from their moorings and lost, and, going floating through the lake, the most deadly engine one could imagine, killing fish and polluting the water as they pass through the waters until they are thrown up on some beach where hundreds of tons of fish lie rotting, and pollute the water. This Sir, is one of the greatest factors, and, I may say, it is the greatest factor in the depletion and destruction of our once great whitefish. industry in Lake Winnipeg. Unfortunately for our fisheries and for our settlers along Lake Winnipeg, almost immediately after Mr. Wilmot had made his report and had pointed out the danger to the Lake Winnipeg fishing industry from the methods practised by the large combines, he retired from office being then an old man and a man of very great experience. Mr. Wilmot had been in the employ of the government for many years and he had been under, I believe, the best deputy that the Department of Marine and Fisheries ever had. I am sipeaking of the late William Smith. He, Wilmot, understood \rtiat these interests had done along the shores of the great lakes in Ontario, he knew what their methods had resulted in and he knew that they would result in similar destruction in Lake Winnipeg. He pointed out in his report, in a very specific and clear manner, what these companies were going to do in Lake Winnipeg if not restricted, and it is remarkable that the department did not act more vigorously upon that report. He retired as I have said just after making this report, and the gentleman who was appointed to fill his position was the present commissioner, Professor Prince, a man who came to this country from the old land entirely ignorant of the conditions that prevailed on Lake Winnipeg, entirely ignorant of the methods practised by the American fish interests and entirely ignorant of the results of those methods on the Ontario lakes. Consequently, when he came to Manitoba he was handicapped in such a way as to make it almost impossible for him to realize that there was any great danger of the depletion of Lake Winnipeg by the methods practised by the commercial interests. No Mr. BRADBURY.
doubt this idea was created and supported strongly by the then resident inspector of fisheries. I speak of the late Latouche Tupper. I know it is an old maxim, which I intend largely to follow to-night, to always speak well of the dead, but to do justice to this subject I must tell the House the truth regarding what I believe to be the cause of the depletion of that great lake. Mr. Tupper was inspector, and if he had been a paid official of that great American combine he could not have done more to assist in the destruction of the fishery of Lake Winnipeg than he did. Every move that was made to check the killing of fish by the American fish interests was countered by this inspector. He had the ear of his minister at Ottawa on account of his official position and he apparently had the ear of the officers in the department and every move that was made to check this American fish interest was countered by this man and by the influences that surrounded him.
I regret, Mr. Speaker, to have to say that representation after representation was made to the Department of Marine and Fisheries pointing out the destruction that was going on, but it seemed impossible to reach the ear or obtain the sympathy of the department. Settlers along that lake who had been induced to settle there largely on account of the great fishing industry that was promised had petitioned the government time after time praying for protection, but it seemed impossible to get the department to take any action. That cannot'be very much wondered at perhaps when we realize that for years, on both sides of the Speaker, sat gentlemen who were stockholders and supporters of the American fish interests. We had up to a very few years ago members on both sides of this House who were stockholders or agents of the American fish interests. Consequently, you can well understand how impossible it was for the provincial settlers to get the ear of the department or of the minister. This is a regrettable fact but I think it has had considerable to do with the destruction of the fishery, I am speaking now of, what I know. In 1893, when these settlers had exhausted every resource that they could command to obtain justice from the Department of Marine and Fisheries, being well acquainted along the shores of that lake and being in business myself, not in the fish business, seeing the destructive methods that were practised by the American interests and the great destruction that had taken place in our fisheries, I came to Ottawa and took the mater up with the then minister, Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper. I became interested in the matter up with the then minister, Sir Charles Hibert Tupper. I became interested in the matter largely because of the fact that the American fish in-

terests, not satisfied with controlling our fisheries and taking fish out of our lake to the extent of millions of pounds illegally, were endeavouring to crush out of existence the two small Canadian companies that were then operating on the lake. This was their modus operandi: there was a duty of a quarter cent a pound on all fish imported into the United States from Canada, but a clause in the United States Customs Act provided that any fish taken in Canada in nets owned by American citizens would be admitted into the United States free. The Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago, that great octopus which fastened its tentacles on every fish producing sheet of water in Canada, received the advantage of this provision of the United States customs law as it owned the nets and plant of the Robinson Company of that time and when the fish of the two Canadian companies got to the border line it was met with the duty and handicapped to that extent in the Chicago market. In this way the Americans were able to dictate prices and terms to the Canadians. The result was that in 1889 they succeeded, with their control of the Chicago market in crushing the two Canadian companies out of existence. In that year the Selkirk Fish Company and the Reid and Tait Company sold their business to the Booth Fish Packing Company, or as it was called in this country the Dominion Fish Company, but it was Canadian in name only, the stock being almost exclusively owned by the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago. Since that time the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago have practically controlled the fishing in Lake Winnipeg, Right under the eyes of the officers of the government they have taken from 1,200 to 1,500 tons of fish annually out of this lake, although it was pointed out in 1890 that if they were allowed to continue taking out two and a quarter millions of pounds of fish annually the lake would soon be depleted. In 1898 through the efforts of some very prominent Liberals in Manitoba who knew something of the conditions that prevailed on Lake Winnipeg and who had fought side by side with myself and others in trying to prevent the destruction of this lake, sufficient pressure was brought to bear on the present government to remove the then inspector Latouche Tupper. In his place the government appointed a man from whom everybody expected great things in the person of Mr. F. W. Colcleugh, an old resident of the town of Selkirk, a man who had been engaged in the fish business himself and who knew every bay and every inlet, on the lake, and every settler on its shores. When Mr. Colcleugh assumed office we expected that the American Fish Company would receive a check, but we failed to realize the power of this great combine. Within less than two years this man who tried to do
his duty by the country and by the settlers was practically forced out of office. Every recommendation he made to the department at Ottawa in the way of restricting the American fishing interests from killing the fish, was either ignored or side tracked so that he failed entirely to make any improvement in the conditions. Mr. Colcleugh was not only a prominent citizen but he was a prominent Liberal; he had represented a Manitoba constituency in the local legislature for many years and the settlers along the lake had great hopes that he would see justice done to them. Now, in order to prove that Mr. Colcleugh was true to the people and true to his trust, and that he saw eye to eye with Mr. Wilmot, who realized that these great American fish interests were destroying Lake Winnipeg, I shall read some strong representations to this government contained in a report of Mr. Colcleugh made on January 15, 1900:
Selkirk, January 15, 1900. Hon. Sir Louis Davies, K.C.M.G.,
Minister of Marine and Fisheries.
Sir,-I have the honour to report as follows on the fisheries of Manitoba, for the year 1899, and to enclose herewith statistical returns for the same period.
This season in the matter of catch and all other respects, may be said to have been an average one, some lakes showing an increase in output, and others a proportionate decrease.
* # * [DOT]
The fish companies continue to move their plants northward, and this year their operations were carried on within a short distance of the northern shores of the lake, and I understand they contemplate another move to Norway House and Playgreen Point on the northern coast. To my mind this is prima facie evidence of the depletion of these waters. Fully 90 per cent of the catch of all our lakes goes to the United States and finds a market there at good prices. Last spring I had a wholesale price list from the Detroit Fish Association, which I am told, is one of the tentacles of the great American octopus, the fish combine, and this list quoted our white-fish at 8 cents per pound wholesale, and our sturgeon at from 9 to 14 cents, while fine dressed trout taken from eastern waters was only quoted at 5f cents.
Now, I want to give you the reports of two of his officers on the lakes:
1. Officer Magnusson of Arnes, on the western shore of Lake Winnipeg, reports a decrease in the catch of fish in his district, as compared with last season, and says that winter fishing was a failure. He reports close seasons and other regulations well observed in his district and closes his report as follows:	' In
my opinion the lake will surely be depleted of fish in a few years if the companies are allowed to fish as at present.'
Angus McKay, one of the oldest men on Lake Winnipeg, a man who was in the employ of the late government for many years as Indian agent at Beren's river, makes this report:

2. Angus McKay, Esq., of Boren's river, late Indian agent at the point, has resided there for over twenty years, and has always taken a lively interest in all matters pertaining to the welfare of the community, and now writes stating that the lake is being rapidly depleted of both whitefish and sturgeon, and urges the government to pay heed to it before it is too late. I may add that this opinion is shared by all disinterested parties who have given this matter any consideration.
Mr. Colcleugh also makes the following report to the deputy minister, which with your permission I will not read, but hand in, as I do not wish to take up the time of the House. After a lengthy report he says:
In conclusion permit me to say that I have given the matter of our fisheries considerable study, and consulted hundreds of settlers, and people who have no interests, other than the best interests of the province to serve, and all are of opinion that lake Winnipeg is being rapidly depleted of both whitefish and sturgeon and that even one more season's fishing such as last year, and a few preceding years, will he disastrous.
In verification of this let me state that the only whitefish now left in the lake are within from 20 to 25 miles of the most northerly parts, Last season over twelve hundred tons were taken under commercial licenses by the Dominion Kish Company, most of which were caught within 25 miles of the outlet of the lake. Then it must be borne in mind that all fish which pass over Sea Falls never return. The first mentioned fishing was done in the south portion of the lake near to the mouth of Bed river, where whitefish were very plentiful, then they moved gradually northward to Swampy island. When these grounds were fished out, they then moved to Reindeer island where they fished so long as it was profitable, and then shifted to George's island, and later to Horse island, the most northerly island in the lake and all commercial fishing was carried on last season between this island and the north shore of the lake.
At this moment gangs of men are engaged building ice houses and making other extensive preparations on the northern shores of the lake in the vicinity of Warren's landing, and Playgreen lake, preparatory to operations there this winter and next summer, and as I said before, if fishing is permitted for another year on such a scale, it will prove a serious matter to the people of this province.
These reports prove conclusively that Mr. Colcleugh saw eye to eye with Mr. Wilmot, and did all that any man could do to save the, fisheries of Lake Winnipeg, but the officials of the department and I fear the minister himself lent a deaf ear to his reports and recommendations; and after struggling for two years with the department to secure justice for the settlers of Lake Winnipeg, he gave up the fight in disgust, and resigned. The position was then filled by a man taken out of a hardware store in the town of Selkirk, a man who knew no more about fish than the average member of this House knows about watchmaking. I have no hesitation in say-Mr. BRADBURY.
ing that it was on the recommendation of the head of the fish combine in Selkirk, the president of the Dominion Fish Company, Captain William Robertson, that Mr. Young was appointed to that position. While a very estimable man, Mr. Young at that time was thoroughly ignorant of the fisheries. It is a very grave question whether he knew a whitefish from a tullibee, or a tullibee from a pickerel ; but he was just the kind of a man who suited the great American fish interest. As he knew nothing about the fisheries, he could not see where these great companies were destroying the fisheries of Lake Winnipeg. Coming in right on the heels of Mr. Colcleugh, a man who had years of experience in the fisheries, and who had resided at the headquarters of the fisheries at Selkirk, ever since they were started, Mr. Young made a report, and I wish to quote a passage of it to give you an idea of the position he took in this matter. His _ report to the Dominion Commission of Fisheries, Ottawa, is dated Selkirk, March 18, 1902, and in it he says:
As was foreshadowed in the preliminary statement published in last year's report, the returns show an increase in the quantity of fish caught and exported over the year 1900.
Whitefish have been very plentiful, so much so that some of the companies got all the fish required in about six weeks or two months fishing. I am pleased to report a yield of 1,364,000 pounds over the preceding year's, which goes to show that we have still an abundance of whitefish in our waters at any rate; 1 can say so with regard to the waters of Lake Winnipeg.
I just want to point out how easily a man may be misled. I do not believe that Mr. Young realized, when he made that report, how misleading it would be to the department. He states that there is abundance of fish in the lake in the very season when the companies had nearly doubled their plants, doubled the number of boats in use, more than doubled the number of men employed, and consequently more than doubled the power to kill the fish and chase them into the deep waters. These things account for the apparent abundance of fish, and Mr. Young does not take them into account in making his report. It merely shows how well this large trust had fortified itself. Reading the report of Mr. Young, the average man would suppose that Lake Winnipeg fishery was in a flourishing condition, that there was really no danger of its waters being depleted, while the facts prove that the lake to-day is depleted from the south end to the north end. One proof of this is to be found in the fact that in the early days the average whitefish taken out of Lake Winnipeg was from four and a half to five pounds weight, whereas the average taken last year by the American fish companies was less than two pounds weight. According to the law and the Tegu-

lations of the department, no fish of less than two pounds weight is to be taken out of Lake Winnipeg; but I make the statement here that the average fish taken by the American fishing companies last year was not over two pounds, so that there must have been a large number under two pounds to make that average. In the season of 1907 the catch was very poor, and the inspector, reporting under date of Selkirk, June 1, 1908, speaks of it in the following language:
It will be noted that there is a large falling off in the production of whitefish, while the apparatus used was practically the same as that used the previous year. In the first place the season was a month later than usual in opening up, it being about the 1st of July before any fish were taken. Throughout the summer season the weather conditions were very unfavourable for successful operations of the fisheries, which created a shortage in the catch. My observations lead me to believe that the shortage was entirely due to the above cause, and not from depletion of the fishery. I have no doubt but that when the weather conditions are favourable for successful operations the fishery will redeem itself.
That report coming from the Inspector of Fisheries in the face of the fact that the average size of the fish had fallen from 4J and 5i to 2 pounds, is conclusive evidence that the officials of the Fisheries Department have not been as zealous as they might have been in the protection of this great fishery, and not willing to admit that the lake is depleted greatly. A few years ago, when we who took an interest in this question and were trying to convince the Department of Fisheries from time to time that this lake was being depleted, and made statements to that effect to any of the officials in charge, we were met almost invariably with the reply that we were endeavouring to kill a great industry. The idea that this fishery belonged to the people of Canada and ought to be protected for our own settlers and our own people never seemed to enter the minds of these officials. Their whole aim seemed to be to do everything possible to encourage these great commercial companies to export our fish to the American market. The idea never seemed to suggest itself to them that this fishery ought to be protected and kept foT the people of our western country.
I want to be as brief as possible, but I desire to put this matter on record in such a manner that the minister and this House will understand something about the conditions which have prevailed on Lake Winnipeg during the last fifteen or eighteen years; and to do so, it will be necessary for me to give a short resume of the operations of these commercial interests since their establishment. As I have said this lake was depleted Tight under the eyes of the departmental officers. Any one, having as much experience as I have had on this question,
would almost think that these men had been hypnotized by these great interests and were consequently unable to realize what was actually taking place. In 1881, Messrs. Reid and Clark, two fishermen from Col-lingwood, started to fish in the extreme southern part of the lake, right opposite Big island. At that time that part of the lake abounded in fish. Its waters were teeming with magnificent specimens of whitefish, by long odds the best ever taken from any waters on this continent. Right alongside where they were fishing was a settlement of some 3,000 Icelanders that settled there early in the seventites. These Inlanders expected that they would be allowed to carry on a great industry and reap the reward which would have been theirs had these commercial interests not been allowed to come in and practically steal what really belonged to our own people. This great settlement had no difficulty up to 1890 in obtaining all the fish they required in the southtern part of the lake, not only for their own use but for the Manitoba market, which was not then very large. In 1882. Reid and Clark moved their plant a little farther north to Bull Head, still in the south end, and caught an abundance of fish there. In 1885 they put on the first steam tug that was ever used in these waters and put up 150 tons of fish. This was the commencement of the export trade of whitefish from Manitoba to the United States. Soon the wealth of this lake became known and in 1886 the Manitoba Fish Company-Canadian in name only- 96 per cent of its stock being held by Americans- began operations on Lake Winnipeg and built a large plant at Swampy island, Reindeer island, and the Little Saskatchewan. In 1887, the Booth Fishing Packing Company of Chicago, that great vampire which has sucked the heart's blood out of our fishery, came into operation under the name of Wm. Robinson. This gave the lake over entirely to these American interests, but in 1889 the Selkirk Fish Company, a purely Canadian company, started operations and established their plant in the north end of the lake at what is called Selkirk or Horse island. In 1892 Reid & Clark started operations also on Horse island. In 1894 we find that all these other companies which had been fishing in the south end of the lake, off Swampy island and Reindeer, had depleted these waters and moved to the north end and were fishing off Horse island. In a few years they took from that sheet of water surrounding Horse island and Big Saskatchewan from 1,500 to 1,800 tons of whitefish annually, 90 per cent of which were exported to American markets. In 1898 the Booth Packing Company of Chicago secured absolute control of the lake and have controlled it ever since. There is one point I want to bring to the attention of the minister, and that is

that, under the laws of Canada, this great American combine had no status in our waters. They had no right to fish in Canadian waters, but they succeeded in evading the laws by forming what they called the Dominion Fish Company. Every official, however, in the Marine Department, as well as the inspector at Selkirk, knew that the Booth Fish Packing Company of Chicago were the real owners of the plant at Lake Winnipeg. In face of the law which states distinctly that every company or individual, before it can secure a commercial license to fish in Lake Winnipeg, must be composed of British subjects and be the actual owners of the plant, these men were enabled through their agents, to take the oath and secure a license which made it possible for them to destroy the greatest inland fishery this country had, or ever will have. You would suppose, Mr. Speaker, that this fact would have caused an investigation toy the Fishery Department years ago. There is no question but that the Commissioner of Fisheries knew it as well as I did, because the attention of the department was drawn to it from time to time. But the department seems to be powerless to interfere to protect our settlers against the encroachment of American poachers. After depleting Lake Winnipeg from the south end clean up to the north end, from Big island, Swampy island, Beindeer island, and moving out to Horse island in the north, we find them at the northeast corner of Lake Winnipeg six or seven years ago, and they have been fishing there continually ever since, so that that part of Lake Winnipeg is very near depletion at the present time. When I made the statement a moment ago that the fish taken out of that part of Lake Winnipeg last year did not average more than two pounds weight, it will be clear to every man of this House what the condition of the fishery is at the present time in that lake must toe.
When Mr. Wilmot made his report in 1900 he pointed out that certain parts of the lake should be protected, and he furnished a map to the department, which is contained in his report which I hold under my hand, setting aside certain waters in which he thought no commercial fishing should be allowed. This I believe was observed fairly well up to within a year or two ago. But a year or two ago we find that commercial fish interests, after the season had closed on Lake Winnipeg, operating in waters known as the Playgreen lake, and that part of Lake Winnipeg-because it is really a part of the lake-was protected according to the map that Mr. Wilmot had furnished to the department. Now this was not done unknown to the department, it was thoroughly aware that the companies were fishing in Playgreen lake, their attention was drawn to the fact Mr. BRADBURY
but no effort was made to stop them. I want to point out that during the last 15 years, under both political regimes, the Fishery Department has not given to the settlers on Lake Winnipeg the protection they had a right to expect for that great industry, or an industry which was formerly great. When I state that Lake Winnipeg is depleted to-day, it is a statement I have made from time to time during the last three or four years, not from hearsay, not from what I have read in the newspapers, but from what I know. I have been acquainted with Lake Winnipeg on and off for 26 and 27 years, and I want to say that during that time I have never had the value of a five cent piece invested in the fisheries on that lake. So my action here to-night does not arise from any pecuniary interest, but altogether on account of the public interest. The fact remains that our fisheries have been depleted by the commercial companies.
But, Sir, it will be hard to get one of the officials, either at Selkirk, where you have an inspector, or in the department here, to admit that Lake Winnipeg is depleted. They w'ill tell you that Lake Winnipeg is not depleted. We have the inspector stating in 1907 that he did not believe Lake Winnipeg was depleted, and that in the face of the fact that these commercial interests have moved from station to station, year after year, during the last 18 years, until now they have established themselves on the northeast corner of Lake Winnipeg. If their former haunts have not been depleted, why have they travelled 270 miles to get fish elsewhere. They have gone this great distance simply because they have taken out all the fish in the lower part of the lake. Surely it is time now that something should be done, that some drastic measure should be taken to protect this fishery. It is high time that this farce which has been going on should end and that we know the truth regarding the lake. We have men at the present time investigating that matter. They compose the second commission that has been appointed to investgate the fisheries in Lake Winnipeg.
Just here let me give the minister a little history of the first commission, which may save him perhaps from some little deception that may be practised through the present commission. In 1894 I made a report to Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper that American companies fishing in those waters which were allowed to use 20,000 yards of nets, that they were fishing double that amount and were destroying the lake fisheries, and that the waters of the lake were being polluted by dead fish.	My statement was combatted by the then inspector, Latouche Tupper, who, as I said before, was in hearty ' sympathy apparently with the

American interests. The consequence was that I induced Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper to grant a commission, and he appointed a lawyer in the town of Selkirk, and gave him instructions to go to the lake during (the winter time and take the evidence from all the fishermen that were engaged in this great fish company. This lawyer went on and made a report, which I think is in the department, in fact, I have seen it within the last three or four weeks. It is composed of a couple of hundred sheets of foolscap typewritten, livery man that was examined proved conclusively every statement and every charge that had been made regarding the manner in which the American fish interests were operating on that lake. Now, what happened? In the spring of the year when these .poor men came off the lake, men who had been robbed of a great industry, men who had to work or starve, when they came in to obtain employment from the great American combine, they were met at the door of the office by one of the men who had a copy of the report of this commission in his hand, and he would say to these men: 'John, you swore so and so to Mr. Elliott; you cannot work any longer for the fish company if you talk like that; you made *a mistake.' Consequently he took that man upstairs and made him swear just the reverse. Ninety per cent of these men were made to contradict their former evidence. I presume that report is in the department here, and was filed to countTact the effect of the other report. I make this statement here to-night so that it may help the minister to be on his guard in regard to the investigation that is now going on in Manitoba, and so that he may take measures to make it a fair and impartial one. I was reading some of the evidence that was taken at Winnipeg, and I want to draw the minister's attention to it. I do not know what power this commission has, but I notice that every man who is examined in Winnipeg, and I think also in Selkirk, were all of them either owners of or stockholders in these fish companies, or men directly1 interested in the large fishing combine. There was not one man who had the interests of the public at heart, that is, the interest of the settlers, who was examined in either of these cities, and this is a very important fact. Some of the evidence given by Mr. Guest I have under my hand; he is a fish dealer in Winnipeg, a member of what is called the Northern Fish Company. He states that the Northern Fish Company is purely Canadian. Well, I am sure the minister knows and the department knows that a majority of the stock of the Northern Fish Company belongs to what is called the Buck Eye Fish Company, and the Buck Eye Company is
controlled by the Booth Fshing Packing Company of Chicago. Consequently, the Booth Company controls the Northern Fish Company just as much as it does the Dominion Fish Company on that lake. But that man swears before this commission that that company is purely a Canadian company. Now, Sir, evidence of that kind should be a warning to the minister, and I hope his commissioners who are taking this evidence on Lake Manitoba will be in a position to cross-examine these men. I do not suppose that the paper gives all the evidence, but I do not notice, in reading the whole of the evidence then given that there has been any cross-examining done. Men have been allowed to come forward, simply make their statements and walk out of the room. If that is the class of evidence that the commission is going to secure I want to say to the minister that he will be very much disappointed with the result. I believe that the present Minister of Marine is anxious to do what he can to protect the fisheries. I have that feeling and I hope I will not be disappointed.
There are one or two other items that I want to call the minister's attention to. First, I want to say a word as to the sturgeon fishery. This, at one time, was a profitable industry on Lake Winnipeg, but the same interests, the American fish interests, came in and depleted that fishery. We find that while they were able to get from 600,000 to 800,000 pounds of sturgeon in a year and were able to do it year after year the best they could do last year was to secure 170,000 pounds. This proves conclusively that the fish is almost extinct on that lake. This is a serious question for our Indians upon that lake. We have a large number of Indians along that lake and the depletion of our fisheries, in addition to being an outrage upon the people of those great provinces of the west, is a great hardship to the poor Indian who has to travel miles and miles to get enough fish to feed himself and his family. In the old days an Indian could set his net any place along the lake and get any fish he wanted. Today, he cannot do that. These waters are depleted to such an extent that he cannot put up the fish that he used to put up for his winter's supply The sturgeon was a very valuable fish. We, in Manitoba, never realized the value of this fish. The Americans came into our waters, however, and they have made a great deal of money out of sturgeon. The Indian or settler who caught this sturgeon, received, as a rule, 75 cents or $1 at the most for a sturgeon weighing from 75 to 125 pounds. These fish were taken to Chicago and sold from 9 to 14 cents a pound. The caviare that was got from the product of these sturgeon was a very valuable product in addition. Consequently, the Americans have reaped

a very great harvest out of our great inland waters. It does seem strange to me that the Canadian government have been almost powerless to protect our waters from the American fishermen. I could well understand the difficulty along the international -waterways, but there should surely be no difficulty in great lakes like Lake Winnipeg, Lake Winnipegosis and Lake Manitoba. They are in the heart of our own country and we surely should be able to keep the Americans from coming in and taking the fish from under our nose. We have, during the last 15 or 18 years, been simply hewers of wood and drawers of water to the great American interests. The settler who came into that country in the early days and who ought to be wealthy to-day, as a result of the existence of these great fisheries, is struggling for a living while these American trusts have been allowed to make hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the fishing industry.
I would just like to say a word or two here regarding the province of Saskatchewan. We have no great lakes there, but we have a lot of small ons. These lakes are being Tapidly depleted. I know this is not the report that the minister gets. I have read the reports that have come in from his inspectors, but, I would refer the minister to the evidence given at Selkirk by one Mr. John Morrison. He swore that he had fished at Turtle lake, which is a small lake in Saskatchewan, and that he had taken out ten carloads of whitefish last winter. How long do you think that lake can stand that class of fishing? The inevitable result of commercial fishing in these small lakes is that they will be depleted within a short time. I enter a plea to-night for the settlers of that great province. Those people who are going in there in thousands and, I hope, by hundreds of thousands, will require all the fish that these small lakes will yield. That is the fresh fish supply for that province as Lake Winnipeg was to Manitoba and her sister provinces. I think we have a right to ask the government to protect these fisheries and see to it that the fish are kept not only for the residents but for the coming residents of these great provinces. This is an industry which gives employment to perhaps 50 or 60 men during the winter time. They receive^ a very small sum for the fish they take, just enough to pay for their labour and nothing for the fish. They get their wages and that is all they get while the American Fish Company get the fish. Our people who want fish in Manitoba to-uay are paying nearly double what they ought to pay for fresh fish. This is true of Winnipeg and other towns throughout that province. When I tell you that fresh fish in Winnipeg commands the same price, or just about the same price, as the same fish in Mr. BRADBURY.
Chicago and other American cities you can understand how great a hardship it is to the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
With regard to the Sturgeon question I omitted to refer to Lac du Bonnet, a small lake on the Winnipeg river. It is really an extension of the Winnipeg river about 9 miles long and having an average width of 2 or 3 miles. It is a great sturgeon breeding ground. That ground has been protected and I notice by the report of your officer-the one thing that I have noticed from the report of any official of the department regarding the fisheries of that country that meets with my approval-was a statement commending the policy of protecting that little lake Lac du Bonnet, pointing out that it was teeming with sturgeon that it was a reservoir or breeding ground and ought to be protected. I know there is a very strong effort being made-and I know the minister knows-to secure a license to fish that lake. I trust that the minister will carry out the policy that he has inaugurated and not allow any commercial companies or even any settlers to fish that lake for export purposes. I strongly urge the minister-and I believe that what I say now will be very papular in the province of Manitoba-to prohibit the export of sturgeon from Canada. Sturgeon are very scarce and should not be exported from Canada. A short season might be allowed during which the settlers living along the lake might be allowed to take sturgeon for the home market only.
An important question arises in connection with the settlers living along the Bed river. There are along that river a large number of old settlers. These men have lived there all their lives and have always enjoyed the right to take fish at any time during the year, but under the present law they are not allowed to take fish during what is called the close season. Very few fish go up that river and all the fish the settlers take during the season would not amount to as much as one of those great fish companies would take out of Lake Winnipeg in one day. I shall cite one case to illustrate the great hardship sometimes caused by the enforcement of the law. In the spring of 1897 an old woman, about 80 years of age, went down to the river to try and get a fish. Many of these settlers, it must be remembered, are very poor. This old woman had a little scoop-net and was fishing with it along the shore when one of the zealous inspectors of the department came along, saw the old woman trying to take fish during the close season, took the net and broke it across his knee. The old woman said: 'You might as well take a stone and knock my brains out as leave me to starve.' That is a hard case, but there are many quite as bad. I wrote the minister a letter upon this subject as follows:

January 28, 1909.


Hon.  L. P.@: Brodeur,
Minister Marine and Fisheries,
Ottawa.
Honourable Sir,-X beg to draw your attention to what has proved to be a very great hardship to many of the old settlers along the bank of the Red river, that is, the enforcement of a closed season for the taking of fish in the Red river by the settlers who fish only for their own consumption. This has proved to be, as I said above a great hardship, especially to many of the poorer families-this applies especially to the spring of the year. I would therefore suggest and urge that you cause the law, which restricts the settlers along the bank of this river, between the Catholic mission, 7 or 8 miles north of the town of Selkirk and the northern limits of the city of Winnipeg, to be annulled,-that all settlers between these points be allowed to fish at any season for home consumption only. This change cannot have any very bad effect as all the fish taken by the settlers for this purpose does not amount to as much as to what one of these fishing companies would take out of the lake or at the mouth of the Red river in one day,-while on the other hand, the change that will enable those poor settlers to catch fish for their own table, as they have been in the habit of doing for fifty years before this law was applied by your department would prove a great blessing to these people.
Trusting that you will se your way clear to meeting this request, I am,
Yours faithfuly.
I received a renlv signed by Mr. Venning, one of the officials of the department. I do not wish to speak harshly of the officials but I have always felt that the officials of the department did not extend to the poor settlers of that county the sympathy that they should. Mr. Venning says:
The minister directs me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 26th ultimo, requesting that so far as that portion of the Red river beween Catholic mission and the north limits of the city of Winnipeg is concerned, the fishery regulations be so arranged as to allow the settlers at all times of the year to take fish for their own use, and I note your opinion that the amount taken would be so small as to have no ill effect on the permanence of the fishery.
In reply I may say that the fishery regulations are framed with a view to imposing the least possible restrictions on the fishermen compatible with the permanence of the fishery and the experience of the department is to make it very loath to countenance any fishing whatever for a particular kind of fish during the close season provided for its reproduction.
While the department would regret very much to have to cause hardship to any of the settlers it fails to see why it would not be possible for such settlers to be able to provide themselves with sufficient fish for their own use under the ordinary domestio license, the fee on which is only $2, during the regular fishing season.
This letter comes from one of the officials of the department and shows how little 206
sympathy they have with the hardships that prevail along that river. These people enjoyed the right to take these fish long before we as Canadians had any right to a foothold in that country, and it seems a great hardship that we should go in there and allow our great corporations to kill fish by hundreds and millions of pounds and ship them out of the country and at the same time deny to those poor people the right to catch enough fish to keep body and soul together. So I enter a plea with the minister and ask him to see that this privilege is granted to these settlers from this date on. It must be remembered that these men do not sell the fish, what they take are simply for their own use, and surely they should be allowed to catch enough for their own consumption.
The question of fish culture is one of great importance to the settlers along that lake and deserves careful attention. It is an industry requiring very skilful management but I regret to say that the hatcheries in Manitoba have been conducted carelessly, thoughtlessly and inefficiently. I believe that when the minister realizes what has really taken place along the southern end of the lake he will endeavour to repair the great wrong that has been done to our settlers. I believe that the depleted fisheries can be repaired to a great extent through the use of hatcheries properly manned and managed, although little can be accomplished with hatcheries conducted as those in Manitoba now are. A hatchery was built at Selkirk many years ago, under the late government more as an experiment than anything else. We have in charge of that hatchery a man who knew nothing about fish culture, who had driven a dray in Selkirk for 20 years. He was taken from that position and put in charge of the fish hatchery, and yet the department expects good results from a hatchery of that kind, managed by a man who knows practically nothing about fish culture. What happened? Two years ago, although the government had spent over $10,000 in trying to secure spawn in Lake Winnipeg their efforts were abortive simply because the man in charge did not know his business, and did not understand the taking of spawn. The hatcheries at Selkirk and at Lake Winnipeg were closed. A consignment of spawn was sent from Ontario to keep the hatchery going, but when it reached Selkirk, through the ignorance of the man in charge, the spawn was allowed to spoil and the hatchery was again closed. Even when it is successful as it was this year, the management is imperfect. At Selkirk, when the young fry are ready and must go into the water, the water is unfit
Ifor them.
The Red river is clear of ice three weeks before Lake Winnipeg; the temperature of



the river rises rapidly and the fry have to be deposited, and when they are discharged the water of Red river is extremely muddy. It is safe to say that not ten per cent of the fish from the hatchery ever live to reach Lake Winnipeg. Everybody knows this, the department knows it. To-night from my place in this House I put in a plea that the hatchery be removed to where it will do some_ good. I suggest that it be placed on Big island or some other point on the south end of Lake Winnipeg, and if that be done it will to some extent help to remedy the great wrong perpetrated, and to replenish the_ waters in the south end of the lake. There is no question that if there was a hatchery placed on Big island or somewhere on the south end of the lake that within the next four or five years we would have abundance of fish there, for the settlers at least. Two or three years ago we spent $24,000 in building a hatchery at Beirns river and although Mr. Jackson, the late member for the county promised the settlers at the south end that the hatchery would be built on Big island, the influence of the great fish companies was too strong and they had it located on the north end of the lake so as to help to produce fish to keep that American combine supplied. What I set out to say was that that hatchery lay idle all last year, because, through the bungling of the men employed to look after this delicate business of fish culture, no spawn was secured. Not one of these men in charge of the hatcheries has had any experience. The inspector of hatcheries at Selkirk is a very fine fellow himself, but he is a lumberman who attends to his lumber business in Selkirk, and he knows no more about fish culture than I do about making a watch. That is the kind of men that is placed in charge of the fish culture of the province of Manitoba, and is it any wonder we have had such results? The man in charge of the hatchery at Beren's river was a friend of the late member, Mr. Jackson, and he was taken off the farm to be put in charge there. If we are to succeed in replenishing that lake with fish, if we are to get any value for the thousands of dollars we have spent, it is absolutely necessary that competent men should be put in charge. I trust that the report of the commission will be a comprehensive one, and that it will enable the minister to judge of these matters himself and not be dependent upon his officials. Now, Sir,
I have endeavoured to place this matter as fairly as possible before ' the House. There is no politics in it or there ought to be none, but unfortunately at times politics do get mixed up in it and politics have a good deal to do with the destruction of our lakes. I have tried to place the matter fairly before the minister in the hope that I may induce him to grapple with the question and to. remedy the evils that exist. Our Manitoba fisheries are a great natural Mr. BRADBURY.	[DOT]
resource of the province and they ought to be well guarded. There are a large number of citizens in my own constituency who depend largely for a livelihood on the pursuit of this industry, and the fall and winter fishing on the lake is quite an important enterprise. There is no danger to the fisheries from winter fishing because every time the net_ is put into the water it is taken out again with the fish that are in it, but in the case of the summer fishing miles and miles of these nets are often torn away and they go sailing through the lake killing and destroying the fish as they pass along and polluting the waters. I ask the minister to see that the commission which investigates this question will not be content with taking the mere statements of certain people, but that they will have' power to subpoena witnesses and cross-examine them so that a true knowledge of the conditions on Lake Winnipeg may be obtained and an adequate remedy applied.
Now, in conclusion, allow me to again press upon the minister the absolute necessity of erecting at once an up-to-date hatchery on Big island. This end of the lake has been thoroughly depleted of whitefish for commercial purposes, and as it is the portion of the lake where the large Icelandic settlement reside, it ought to be replenished at the earliest possible date. That the lake has been depleted is evidenced from the fact that the companies are to-day paying 3i cents per pound for whitefish that they used to pay about one-quarter of one cent per pound for. A great wrong has been done to our settlers and to our residents, not only of Manitoba and of all the Eastern provinces, where our magnificent whitefish ought to come, but on account of the manipulation of our fishery by American interests, Canadians have to pay double or nearly so for their own fish than they ought to. I therefore strongly urge upon the government the wisdom of an up-to-date system of hatcheries on the lake, especially in the south end, placed under the management of experts in fish culture, and a thoroughly Canadian policy, from this date, regarding the companies that are allowed to fish. As far as possible, the fishing ought to be husbanded for our settlers ; their fall and winter fishing ought to be preserved, and every encouragement ought to be given to this kind of fishing.


James Davis Taylor: I desire to refer as briefly as possible to conditions which prevail in British Columbia and which are not dissimilar from those presented to the House by my hon. friend (Mr. Bradbury) in that we are confronted with the possibility of giving over the fisheries of British Columbia to the control of an American corporation or corporations. The condition to which I wish to draw attention arises under the treaty concluded last year between Great Britain and the

United States respecting the fisheries in international waters. Although at this late hour of the session time does not permit a discussion of the whole subject of the bearing of that treaty, as was intended by lion, gentlemen on this side of the House, I think it is opportune to make some reference to its effect, more particularly upon the fisheries of the Fraser rver. We get our first intimation of the one sided nature of that treaty from the correspondence so late as the 9th of March, 1908, only a month before the treaty was signed by the two parties, when the Canadian government wrote to this effect:
The Committee of the Privy Council have had under consideration a memorandum from the Secretary of State setting forth that a satisfactory agreement having been reached between the governments of the United States and Canada concerning the definition of the border waters to which the proposed joint fishery regulations will apply; and that to be of value in the preservation of the fishing industry, the regulations will require to be rigidly enforced; and the question naturally arises, will the enforcing of the regulations on the south side of the boundary line continue to be vested in the state authorities. If so, it is important that the government of Canada should he assured that the joint regulations will have the cordial support of the authorities in the several states affected. Otherwise it is manifest that the desired object will not be attained.
As in the past the governments of the several states fronting on the border waters have exercised the right of sovereignty over the fishery regulations, it is not unreasonable to assume that the state authorities will not feel that keen interest in enforcing regulations that may not meet with their approval. It is, therefore, desirable that the views of the federal government at Washington should be asked, and for an expression of their judgment on this important point; as the government of Canada is giving its adhesion to the treaty on the assumption tbjit it will be cordially supported by the state authori tiej.
It is only fair to state that that question had been raised previously in another way, and the opinion of Secretary Boot had been quoted that all treaties under the authority of the United States government are the supreme law of the land. This statement was referred to, in this House lately when the question was asked as to the power of the State authorities of the State of Washington to enforce the treaty made between the two countries; but, as any person may observe from the dates, it was more than a year after they had received this rather indefinite assurance from the United States authorities that the Canadian Government were so dissatisfied with the prospect before them that they asked the British Ambassador at Washington to secure a definite assurance from the federal authorities of the United States that the state authorities of Wash-206i
ington would enforce this treaty. We find in the subsequent correspondence no assure ance of that kind whatever forthcoming; and therefore we are face to face with a-treaty which is fully operative so far as Canada is concerned, but which so far as-the State of Washington is concerned may' be carried out with no greater zeal than has been exercised in the past by the American authorities with regard to the regulations governing the taking of the British Columbia fish caught in the waters of Puget Sound. Bearing this in mind we have this one-sided treaty, and I would like to call attention to some of its principal provisions. It provides that the two powers shall appoint a commission, to be known as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting of one person named by each government; and that it shall be the duty of this commission to make certain regulations, which the two governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislation and executive action with as little delay as possible. As to the duration of these regulations, it is provided:
The regulations, restrictions and provisions provided for in this convention shall remain in force or a period of four years from the date of their executive promulgation, andi thereafter until one year from the date when either the government of the United States or Great Britain shall give notice to the other of its desire for their revision; and immediately upon such notice being given the commission shall proceed to make a revision thereof, which revised regulation, if adopted and promulgated by the President of the United States and the Governor General of Canada in Council, shall remain in force for another period of four years and thereafter until one year from the date when a further notice of revision is given as above provided in this article. It shall, however, be in the power of the two governments by joint concurrent action upon the recommendation of the commission, to make modifications at any time in the regulations.
So under this arrangement we have the regulations referred to this afternoon, which it was stated would not be laid before this parliament before they are given the force of law by the executive action of this government. If this parliament will be stopped for five years, and possibly nine years from having anything to say with respect to these regulations, whatever they are, whether good, bad or indifferent, where prejudicial to our interests or not, we have to put up with them, and have no remedy whatever. That is a point to which I invite the attention of this House, in contrast with what we have heard about our rapidly-growing power of making our treaties and controlling our own affairs. While we have been led to believe that the day has passed when

Canadian interests could be sacrificed by the independent action of the imperial government without the advice or consent of this parliament, we are confronted now with the proposition that so important an industry as the international fisheries between Canada and the United States shall be handed over for a term of five years and possibly for nine years to a body consisting of one appointee of the United States and one appointee of the British Government, and that this parliament shall have nothing whatever to say about it. The time is too late to discuss the bearing of the larger matter of the invasion of what I consider to be the right of parliament to control our fishery laws from year to year without being subject to any such regulation as this. But what concerns me at present is the special bearing upon the British Columbia fisheries, opportune to be discussed at this time from the fact that the final step has not yet been taken by this government, and that it yet remains for this government to withhold its proclamation of these regulations if they are not what they ought to be, and if at the new conference which Professor Prince and Professor Jordan are to have on this subject it is possible to obtain certain restrictions from the Americans which will be very valuable to our fisheries.
Now, we have not been privileged to read officially in this House any of the regulations, but they have come to us officially from other sources. I have in my hand a pamphlet which has been distributed to the legislature of Ontario under this title:
International regulations, restrictions and provisions for the protection and preservation of the food fishes in the waters contiguous to the United States. Prepared pursuant to. a convention concluded Between the United States of America and His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, dated the 11th day of April, 1908, by the International Fisheries Commission, appointed as directed by the said convention.
Amongst other things this official document sets out that these regulations, if they are adopted-we do not know whether they will be or not-will provide this:
It is intended and recommended by the International Fisheries Commission that all existing statutes regulating the fisheries in the international boundary waters, whether promulgated by the Dominion of Canada or by the United States, or by the individual provinces or states, and all statutes of like nature which may be promulgated in the future, shall have full validity until or unless repealed by the authority having jurisdiction in the case in question, in so far as these are not in conflict with ordinances or parts of ordinances in the present code of statutes-
That is the code of statutes provided for in this conference-


James Davis Taylor: -but all statutes or parts of statutes in conflict with the ordinances in the present code shall be null and void.
That is, freely interpreted, that we have given to these two commissioners the right to repeal any Acts which have been passed by this parliament, without consulting us, even without our knowledge. Any Act of this parliament conflicting with any course of action that these commissioners may decide upon shall ipso facto become null and void, and anything we may do that may impair any action of theirs shall during the existence of this convention be null and void. Now, we turn to these regulations and what are some of the things the makers of them propose to do?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Will my hon. friend tell me what document he is reading from- because there is no official document that has been published containing these regulations.


James Davis Taylor: This document bears the imprint of ' L. K. Cameron, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, Toronto, 1909.'


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is impossible. I do not think the Ontario Government has taken upon itself to publish a document like that.


Mr. BARKER.: If the hon. minister will allow me, I understand the position to be this, that a paper identical with the one the hon. ventleman is referring to was issued by the United States Government informally for the information -of all fishing companies and others interested in the United States, and a similar document, the very one the hon. gentleman is reading from, was printed by the Ontario government unofficially to give our people interested in fisheries like information. It was printed at the King's Printer's office in Ontario, not officially, but in precisely the same way as the United States documents are printed, to give advance information to those interested as to what was going to be the law.


James Davis Taylor: As the minister says, no doubt the Ontario government were a little previous from his standpoint.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Ontario government were a little previous.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not only previous. It is true that we had a conference with the Minister of Public Works of Ontario and that he was supplied with the document marked 'confidential,' and if he had taken it on himself to publish such a document I shall not qualify his conduct but leave the country to judge.


James Davis Taylor: Perhaps the hon. minister will modify his judgment when I

state the case. Though I do not care to quote merely from an American newspaper where these regulations were printed, especially the papers of the state of Washington-it was in these papers that I first read them-I am warranted in reading from a document which is set out so authoritatively.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not finding fault with my hon. friend but with the action of the Minister of Public Works of the province of Ontario, if he has taken on himself to publish a document put into his hands and which was marked 'confidential.'


James Davis Taylor: Well, those who are interested in the fisheries are in the position of the seekers after gold, whose maxim is that gold is where you find it. I have endeavoured diligently to obtain from the minister in the House and from the Fishery Commission information, and was not able to obtain it because the minister regarded it as confidential, but the information in this case is, like gold, where you find it, and I find it in this document printed in the King's Printer's office of Ontario. It indicates whait those two commissioners have recommended, or rather what one of them recommends, because this document was evidently made by the American commissioner exclusively, as it is American all through, since it is apparent that only the American commissioner would use throughout American legal phraseology such as is used in this document. It is plain that these were regulations prepared by the American commissioner and that all our commissioner had to do was to revise them. So that from the beginning our commissioner was placed in the inferior position of being the mere reviser and not the maker of the regulations. The interests of our British Columbia fishermen in these regulations arises from this paragraph in the treaty:
It is agreed on the part of Great Britain that the Canadian government will protect by adequate regulations the food fishes ire-quenting the Fraser river.
That is in itself a very innocent looking provision, but those who know the American idea with respect to adequate regulations know that it involves a very great peril indeed. Only a few years after the origin of this treaty, which sprang from the assembling of the Joint High Commission at Quebec in 1898, there came before the government in Ottawa in 1905 a delegation representing the salmon brokers perhaps more than the salmon canners of British Columbia, and they proposed to the government that they should ordain that in the years 1906 and 1908 there should be no fishing whatever in the Fraser river, as something absolutely essential to the preservation of the food fish in that river.
Extraordinary as it may seem, a regulation so drastic as that proposed by that delegation was forthwith enacted and promulgated by order in council of this government or by whatever departmental action was sufficient to accomplish that purpose. Anyhow that delegation left with the assurance that during 1906 and 1908 there would be no fishing whatever on the Fraser river, and the only loophole of escape which our fishermen on the Fraser had was that the action of our government was made contingent on similar action by the state of Washington. To the state of Washington the fishermen of New Westminster went for relief and secured from that state the relief which their own government denied them. At the state capital of Washington there was a determined lobby by the combined salmon packers, which was opposed by all the other interests, the non-combine canners and the fishermen, and the will of the people prevailed in that state over the moneyed interests. That saved our interests in 1906 and 1908, and at this day no man will say, in the light of the experience of these two years, that any good purpose could have been served by that cruel order taking effect. I refer to that to show what is the American idea of adequate regulations for the protection of the food fishes. When we come to these American-made resolutions we find under the head of Puget-Sound :
All commercial fishing for salmon is prohibited from six a.m. on Saturday, in each week until six p.m. the Sunday next following, and the adoption of these regulations is contingent on the adoption by the duly constituted authorities of Canada or British Columbia, of an equivalent closed season on the tidal waters of the Fraser river between the New Westminster bridge and the Mission bridge extending to a period each week not earlier than six p.m. on Monday.
That is that these regulations may be so framed that there shall be a certain close season on Puget Sound and .Gulf of Georgia, during which the Japanese and traps shall be allowed to fish, but that in the waters of the Fraser river, where the white resident ranchers of British Columbia catch their fish, there shall be an additional close season of 24 hours each week, so that the fish may be cleared out of the Fraser before these white fishermen have the chance to place their nets for the purpose of catching the sockeye salmon. And the drastic regulations are to be permitted to pass into law for nine years perhaps without being revised by this parliament, and without the people whose livelihood is being taken away being given the opportunity of being heard or of finding out in advance even what they mean.
I said a short time ago that there was a restriction which our government might have asked for. We find that in this treaty,

like every other treaty made between us and the United States through the intervention of the foreign office, our interests have been sacrificed. In this treaty we find no countervailing clause at all imposing restrictions on the Americans to offset the undertaking that we promise with reference to the Fraser river. I submit that the makers of that treaty might well have made it a condition precedent to any joint action with respect to the fisheries, that the Americans should cease their destructive methods of catching fish which we on our part have undertaken to preserve, that is, that they shall cease from the use of trap nets, which this government very well knows are the most destructive means possible for catching fish, and which this government so long refused to allow us to use on the Canadian side. When we came to make this treaty we had the opportunity of a lifetime to say to the Americans, to the federal government at Washington-who are supposed to be the supreme authority and to control the action of the state government-we had an opportunity to say to the - federal government that in consideration of the undertaking on our side they should enforce a provision that the state of Washington must prohibit the use of trap nets to catch the fish hatched in the Fraser river. Now we have heard a great deal about over-fishing on the Fraser river. The theory is put forward by cannery interests that fishing by these men in the Fraser is the cause of the supply of salmon becoming depleted, but when this government consented to this treaty they knew that such was not the case, and that the cause of the depletion was not over-fishing in the Fraser but over-fishing in the gulf. On this point we have the report of Prof. Prince, made in 1906, and this is what, he says:
Recently there have been signs of a movement northward of canners, who regard the Fraser river as in peril, owing to excessive fishing in the Straits of Georgia and Puget Sound. A great increase in the number of oanneries in the north, and along the west coast of Vancouver island is certain within the next few years.
Professor Prince proceeds to refer to this disastrous method of taking salmon known as trap fishing, and he says:
The methods of fishing legally permitted in the province are few. Drift or gill nets of a prescribed mesh, purse and drag seines, and in a restricted stretch of coast, namely from Victoria west along the shore of Vancouver island, the staked trap nets are licensed; hut the use of traps was until recently prohibited and, in the permanent interests of the salmon supply, they are not permitted generally by the Dominion government, in whose hands the supreme jurisdiction rests. Enormous catches are at times made in salmon traps, especially when there are hi" runs, no less than 310,000 salmon being taken Mr. J. D. TAYLOR,
by one trap of the Pacific American Fisheries Company in Puget Sound in 1905. There is, however, great uncertainty in the working of salmon traps.
Later on he says:
In a ' big run ' the pot has been known to become so packed with living salmon that the sheer weight of the uppermost fish crushed and killed those on the bottom of the net. It is said that some catches in Puget Sound were so enormous that the bottom could not be raised and the ' hrailer ' or seine-liko web passed beneath the fish in the pot and raised by means of winch, could not be used.
Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Minister of Fisheries now, because I do not think it is too late, as he told us this afternoon that these regulations are not completed, and that the two commissioners are to have another conference. I would appeal to him now to stimulate his commissioner, perhaps I should say to authorize his commissioner-because I think he would be only too glad to do so if 'he thought he had the backing of the government-to say to the American commissioner that he will not proceed with any regulations affecting in any way the fisheries on the Fraser river unless the American commissioner agrees to cut out trap fishing from the waters of Puget Sound, and I am sure that the minister would cut out trap fishing from the waters of British Columbia if it were not for the use of trap nets by the Americans. I appeal to him to save our industry from embarrassment by these regulations before it is too late; and if the American commissioner will not agree to that, then we would be well rid, through the disagreement of the two commissioners, of what is so likely to he a very disastrous arrangement with regard to our fisheries. I have warrant for asking this in the experience we have had in the past in dealing with the Americans.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Suppose that the treaty was not ratified and the Americans still had the right to use the same traps. Will we be in any better position then?


Mr J.   D.@: TAYLOR Probably we would be in no better position in that respect. But in my view, the treaty is so dangerous to us as it stands that we are warranted in running the risk of being in no better position, to ensure that we shall be in no worse position, as I feel sure we would he if this treaty comes into effect. Now before concluding I would like to call the attention of the minister to a number of recommendations recently adopted 'by the Fishermen's union of British Columbia, which I understand were submitted to Professor Prince a few weeks ago on his way to San Francisco. They ask first:
That no difference should be in force regard ing fishing rights below and above West-

minster bridge, but that equal rights be extended to all holding a lawful license.
Now, Mr. Speaker, no person who studies the situation can fairly find fault with that. These men to whom Providence has given the supply of fish at their doors, are compelled by the nature of their holdings to work part of the time on land where they have small farms, and it is impossible for them to go a long distance from home down the river. They only ask that they should have equal rights, the same that are extended to the Japanese. If the Japanese can fish five days in the week they ask to be allowed to fish five days in the week. If they are to have only four days, then restrict the Japanese to four days. But give them equal rights on the river, and do not accept that regulation that they should be restricted for twenty-four hours longer than their Japanese competitors and the operators of the traps. Next they declare that the close time from August 25 to September 15 is unnecessary and uncalled for, or that at least a seven and one-eighth inch mesh should be allowed. They say that under the regulations spring salmon and dog salmon will be caught while sock-eyes and cohoes escape. That is another regulation that works great hardship upon the fishermen and works no good to any one. To prove that it works no good to any one, I refer to a paragraph in the report of the inspector last year who says that this limitation is irksome and has been the cause of great loss to a number of fishermen and has produced no good at all. The fishermen's idea is that this was put into the regulations at the instance of the canners to promote their profit by enabling them to close down on the 25th of August instead of having an undetermined period during which they might be compelled to work if the fish were to be caught. Of course if no canners would operate, no fishermen could sell his fish. Until this restriction was put into the law there were always canners outside of the combine who were willimr to operate their plants after the 25th of August, not to can the sock-eyes but to can the cohoes, which are a very good salmon, although not equal to the sock-eyes and which run very freely from the 25th of August or earlier until late in September. The fishermen make large profits out of the cohoe catch, but if the canners are obliegd to shut down on August 25 it is idle for the fishermen to attempt to sell cohoes after the 25th of August, as no canner would keep open and maintain a staff for three weeks after having once shut down on the completion of the sock-eye pack.
Another matter to which the fishermen call the attention of the minister is that there is an enormous destruction of salmon by seals which are becoming more numerous each year. Here is a most important recommendation:
We would also recommend that the regulation prohibiting the export of sock-eyes except in a frozen, canned, salted, smoked or cured condition, works serious hardship to the fishermen of the Fraser river and should be rescinded.
That brings it to my mind that by two regulations seemingly innocent in themselves, the government has established a combine perhaps the strongest and most profitable to its members of any certainly in Canada, if not in America, that is that by the regulations of the provincial government the canners of the Fraser river, who have an association, are absolutely protected in that no person except the existing canners can obtain a license from the government and the fishermen who catch these sock-eyes cannot sell to any one except those persons who are in the combine. These men have a monopoly of the sole source of supply for sock-eye salmon; it is in their power to make whatever profits they choose to make, to pay whatever prices, however small, they choose to pay for these fish, and the fishermen have no remedy whatever as they are not permitted by law to export fish from Canada in a condition to be canned. It seems to me that this is a combine to which a government that is supposed to protect the interests of the people against trusts of all kinds, but particularly food trusts, should give earnest attention. This dual prohibition is the cause of much hardship to the interests along the Fraser and serves no public interest whatever. I wish to say nothing more beyond emphasizing the fact that parliament should seriously consider the advisability of interfering in this matter. We must all realize that we cannot allow our privileges to be interfered with in this way without the most strenuous protest.


Mr. T. J. STEWART (West Hamilton).: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the House and the Minister of Finance to a great number of complaints that have been brought to my notice from Hamilton and other points against the management of the Independent Order of Foresters. That order receives its authority to carry on an insurance business from this parliament and therefore I feel that this is the proper place to lay any compalints against its management. It is complained that for a considerable time the management of the order have been taking large sums of money from the mortuary, contingent and sick and burial funds and using them for current expenses. I do not think they should be allowed to do that. I think that money paid into the order on account of these specified funds should not be diverted to any other purpose. I find that on October 16/1905, the aggregate amount of such borrowings from these funds with interest added at the rate of four per cent per annum, were as follows:

Amount
Fund. borrowed Interest. Total. Mortuary .. .. $297,587.75 $30 213.93 $327,801.36 Contingent .. .. 171,272.33 22,326.22 193 598.55 Sick and funeral. 110,991.55 19,539.89 130,534.11.
of..

Making a grand total
This is a practice which I believe should be absolutely prohibited by law. A great deal of evidence was taken on this particular point, at pages 2293 and 2294 of the report of the Royal Commission on Insurance. With the permission of the House, I will have that evidence inserted in ' Hansard
Q. Because Mr. Stevenson was authorized and requested to go at once to Cairo to meet and confer with you?-A. Yes.
Q. So that you might formulate such plans for the curtailment of expenditures as will comply with the said requirement of the superintendent of Insurance, and that the supreme secretary advise the superintendent of Insurance of his action-did Mr. Stevenson go to see you?-A. Yes.
' Q- He came to meet you in Egypt?-A. Yes, Cairo.
Q. You were then doing what you told us yesterday, surveying the Egyptian field?-A. res, in part, and partly for my health.
Q* 1* ivas further resolved in conformity with the action this day taken looking to the curtailment of expenses,' etc. (Reads down to the word 'monthly.'). 'It was further resolved that no further expenditure be made for advertising,' etc. (Reads down to the words 'executive council ')-your executive council, you being absent, seems to have been rather impressed with the desirability of fall-mg in with the views of the superintendent?
A. res, 1 think so; we always have tried to be m harmony with the views of the superintendent.	r
Q. Among those views was the view that no borrowing from the mortuary fund to the general fund was permissive?-A. That was the superintendent's opinion; my opinion is, and A think it is the opinion of my executive, that the supreme court has supreme power over that fund.	^
Q. Oyer the mortuary fund?-A. Yes, and when it desires to alter the language of the policy with reference to the mortuary fund that puts that in the constitution then the executive have the right to do what the supreme court had authorized to be done bv such an Act as amending the organic law of the order, not simply a resolution, but to amend the law m reference to that, and when that is done I do not think the superintendent nor anybody else has any right to come in say you shall not do this and shall not do that. The Act requires us to have money on hand always to pay the widows promptly," and therefore the ten millions of surplus we have m hand now are ten millions over and above
the requirements of the Act, and therefore__.
Q. When you speak of the Act, are you speaking of the Act of parliament?-A. Yes, and therefore the supreme court has supreme authority m the order, and the executive council are simply the servants of the surpeme court; when it says you may do thi we believe we can properly and legally do it.
Q. Let us discuss that just for a moment Mr. STEWART
nobody doubts the power of the Supreme body to make laws?-A. Yes.
Q. But those must be laws which are not repugnant to the whole inherent constitution of the order?-A. Quite so.
Q. For instance, your supreme court, you would not perhaps think your supreme court had power to abrogate the contracts of insurance and divert the mortuary fund to private purposes, say?-A. Certainly not, because those are contract rights.
Q. Well, is not the right of every policyholder in your order in respect of the mortuary fund a right which depends upon and is confirmed to him by his contract?-A. Sure, but that contract does not call for the maintenance of any surplus.
Q. The contract calls, if I understand it, for the maintenance of a mortuary fund after deducting 5 per cent from it for expenses, and it calls for a maintenance of that fund for the mortuary purposes?-A. The constitution is so arranged by the supreme court itself, but the policy itself, which is the contract, does not require the maintenance of any mortuary fund.
Q. Your policy imports all the provisions of your constitution, does it not?-A. Sure, and therefore when the supreme court alters that it goes into the contract, the modified condition.
Q. Bo you think that the supreme court without a violation of its contract with the policy-holders could alter that 5 per cent to 50?-A. Certainly.
Q. Or to 80?-A. Certainlv.
Q. Or 90?-A. Yes.
Q. Or take it away altogether?-A. Yes. When I said a moment ago that the Act of parliament does not require of us one cent of mortuary reserve then the surpeme court if it thought fit could take the whole of that surplus and use it for the purpose of the order as it thought fit.
Q. Spend it in extending the order?-A.Yes.
Q. Make any use of it?-A. Yes.
Q. Has it struck you that possibly the Act of parliament was passed in view of the provision in your constitution that you never should touch more than 5 per cent of the mortuary fund for expenses?-A. No.


Mr. HUNTER.: He is speaking of the Insurance Act?


Mr. SHEPLEY.: You are speaking, as I suppose, of the legislation under which your order is working?-A. Yes.
Q. And your view was that the Act of parliament did not compel you to maintain the mortuary fund at all?-A. No, that is our own domestic legislation.
Q. You had already told me that by the provisions of your contract you cannot dip into the mortuary fund for expenses beyond 5 per cent by the provisions of your constitution?-A. I never said that.
Q. Is not that in your constitution, that 5 per cent, and 5 per cent only?-A. 5 per cent is the amount allowed now, but there is no earthly reason why at the next session of the supreme court that 'should not be increased to 10 per cent.
Q. Do you think it possible that if your constitution had permitted you to take the whole mortuary fund and devote it to expenses instead of permitting you, as it did at the time of your Act, to take the 5 per coo*

only, do you think it possible you might not have got your legislation?-A. We could not have taken 10 per cent just as easily as 5, because a number of the fraternal societies do take 10 per cent, and I do not think we would have any more difficulty to have the Act passed with 10 per cent in than it was with only 5 per cent.
Q. That is not precisely what I ask you; do you suppose that any legislature would have passed an Act incorporating you if you had come to the legislature with a constitution on the face of it permitting you to take the whole mortuary fund and spend it on extension?-A. Possibly not, but that of course is an insupposeable case.
Q. I only asked you that question because you are relying upon the Act of parliament;
I am pointing out to you that the Act of parliament was passed upon a condition of affairs which you put before them?-A. You asked me if I thought we had the power to take the whole of it and I said yes. You are now asking me if we had that in our constitution, do I think the incorporation Bill would have passed; I say no at once, but that does not alter the fact, as I view it, that if the supreme court wanted to take the whole of the mortuary fund it could take it as a matter of right.
Q. I am sure you will agree with me that whatever the jurisdiction of the supreme court may be it would be great unwisdom, I will put it as mildly as possible, as a matter of policy to make any such radical change in the constitution?-A. Most decidedly, and the proposition was made when we passed the legislation at Los Angeles giving us the profits on lapses to do exactly the very thing that you suggest, to take 10 per cent instead of five, but the five per cent had become a sort of landmark with us, and I did not want to have it altered.
Q. A member when he was told 10 per cent was coming out of his premiums instead of 5 would be startled?-A. I do not think so.
Q. He would be more likely to be startled? A. There are a number of the fraternal societies that are taking 10 per cent and the membership are not startled.
Q. You are misapprehending me, the eye of the policy-holder is more upon 5 per cent than it is upon the profits made by lapses?- A. I do not think that cuts any figure in our legislation.
Q. What was the result of the consultation between yourself and Mr. Stevenson in Cairo? -A. Simply to carry out the policy adopted by the executive during my absence.
Q. What do you conceive, and I, do not want to tie you to the time you were in Cairo, but to any time, what do you conceive to have been the requirements upon which the department was insisting, put them in a nut shell for me, a, b, c?-A. Just that Mr. Fitzgerald regarded the lapses as being a part of the mortuary, and that he did not want the mortuary funds to be disturbed in any way whatever, and I am not sure in a way but that he was right, still I think the order would have done better if they had allowed us to use the extra revenue that the supreme court provided us.
Q. Did you understand that borrowing from the mortuary fund was a thing that was to be still permitted, I mean according to the
views of the department?-A. No; Mr. Fitzgerald makes it very plain that he objects to that, but I never could understand the philosophy of not allowing us to invest mortuary fund with the general fund of the order, there conid be no surer investment.
Complaints are also made in reference to two other clauses in the constitution of the order, numbers 176 and 182. These clauses are as follows, and should be modified or removed from the constitution:
Letters, Circulars, Literature and Other Documents.
176. No letter, circular, publication or document relating * to the order shall be made, printed or circulated by any court or encampment or member of the order without the sanction in writing of the supreme chief ranger or of the high chief ranger; or ot the high standing committee of the jurisdiction, nor shall any letter, circular or document relating to the order be read in any court, or acted upon by any court, unless the same shall have endorsed thereon the approval of the supreme chief ranger or of the high chief ranger of the jurisdiction m which it is issued, read, acted upon or circulated ; nor shall any Forestrio literature or circular be made, used or circulated by any member of the order or deputy of tne *supreme chief ranger or of the high chief ranger or by any high court court or encampment unless the same shall have been approved and sanctioned by the supreme chief ranger. A contravention of any ot the provisions of this section shall subject the offender to suspension or expulsion by the high standing committee or by the supreme chief ranger or by the executive council; and if a high court or court of encampment so offend its charter shall lie subject to suspension by the supreme chief ranger and revocation by the executive
council.	,	, [DOT](2)	Any member who shall try to bring contempt upon the order by speaking disres-pectfullv of the supreme court or any ot its who shall disregard the rules or usages ot the order, or who shall throw discredit upon the order by improper or disreputable conduct, shall be deemed to be an unworthy member, and may be reprimanded, fined,, suspended or expelled from the order; and the trial for any of such offences may take place either before the court or the high! standing committee the supreme chief ranger or the executive council.	.
(23 Any member who shall try to bring contempt upon the ordeT by speaking disrespectfully of the supreme court or any ot its officers, or of any high court or of any ot its officers or of any subordinate court or of any of its officers, or of any companion court or of any of its officers, may he immediately suspended from the order by the supreme chief ranger, and may he forthwith brought to trial; and the trial for such offences shall take place before the subordinate court or companion court, or the high standing committee, or the supreme chief ranger or the executive council, as the supreme chief ranger may determine; and ou conviction by the court,'or by the high standing committee or by the supreme chief ranger, 'or by

the executive council,, he shall stand expelled from the order; but any member suspended under the provisions of this section, upon aoquittal shall be restored to his former status in the order on forthwith paying all premiums or assessments, dues, taxes, and fines that he would have had to pay had he not been suspended.
(3)	Any member who shall be guilty of contempt of the constitution and laws or of the constituted authorities of the order, or of insubordination, or of rebellion against the constituted authorities of the order, may be summarily suspended by the Supreme Chief Ranger or by the executive council.
(4)	If any officer is guilty of an offence under the provisions of this section, the supreme chief ranger, or the high chief ranger of the jurisdiction to which the officer belongs, shall suspend him from office at once and report him forthwith to the executive council, or high standing committee, or subordinate court, or companion court, as may be determined by the supreme chief ranger, to be further dealt with; and, on conviction by the subordinate court, or by the companion court, or by the high standing committee, or by the executive council, as the case may be, he shall stand expelled from the order.
(5)	Any member of a court who shall maliciously make a false charge against a member shall, on conviction by the court, or by the high chief ranger or high standing committee, or by the supreme chief ranger or executive council, stand expelled from the order.
The Royal Commission say with reference to these clauses:
Neither the subordinate nor the high court has any direct connection with the insurance scheme of the order.
The supreme court, which has met about every three years, is composed of the executive and other officers of the supreme court and of the delegates elected by the high courts. Between sittings absolute power is vested in the executive council which consists of a supreme chief ranger, a past supreme chief ranger, a supreme chief viceranger, !a supreme secretary, a supreme treasurer, a supreme medical officer and a supreme councillor.
The supreme chief ranger and his executive have always been supreme, in fact as well as in name. An enactment well devised to stifle criticism is found in what is now article 176 of the constitution, which prohibits subordinate courts and their members from writing, reading or acting upon any communication relating to the order without the sanction of the supreme chief ranger or the high chief ranger of the jurisdiction.
It may be said that although these clauses are in the constitution they are not acted upon. As a matter of fact they are acted upon. I have in my possession a complaint made by Court Garden City, St. Catharines, No. 172, in reference to the case of a Mr. Gage, and correspondence showing the particulars and disposition of this case. I shall


Thomas Joseph Stewart: against something that might happen and which would not be in their best interests.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With the permission of the House, because I have already exhausted my right to speak on the motion which is now before the Chair, I may perhaps be permitted to say a word or two on the question that has been raised by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury). In regard to the treaty which has been spoken of by my hon. friend from New Westminster, I may say at the outset *that I am greatly surprised to see the document which has been published, apparently by the Ontario government, containing certain draft regulations which are embodied in that document. Some time ago I invited the ministers of the provinces interested, namely, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario, to come and confer with Prof. Prince and myself on the regulations which were in the way of preparation. It is true that by the British North America Act the regulation of the fisheries is entirely under the control of the Dominon government. It is true that this is a power put exclusively in our hands, but the Privy Council having decided some years ago that the provincial authorities had what they called a proprietary right in the fisheries, I thought of inviting the ministers whom I have just mentioned to confer with th.e Canadian commissioner and myself upon those regulations. In order to discuss intelligently this question, draft regulations were prepared by the Commissioner and were marked 'confidential.' In my opening remarks I drew the attention of the persons present to the fact that it was not customary to discuss questions of that kind pending negotiations with another power, but, in view of the interest they had in the fisheries, I thought it was proper to invite them to a conference and to submit to them confidential documents which should be treated, of course, confidentially. I do not know whether the minister who was representing the Ontario government at that meeting thought that he was authorized to publish that confidential document which was put in his hands, and I am greatly surprised to find that it has been made public. I have here this document which my hon. friend has just sent over to me, and I might perhaps read the heading: International regulations, restrictions and provisions for the protection and preservation of the food fishes in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada, prepared pursuant to a convention concluded between the United States of America and His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, dated the 11th day of April, 1908, by the International Fisheries Commission, appointed as directed by the said convention.


Thomas Joseph Stewart: I see that the following words are crossed out in pencil mark:
Printed by order of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Toronto, L. K. Cameron, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, 1909.
I do not know whether that document has been laid before the legislature.


James Davis Taylor: My understanding was that it had been distributed to the members of the legislature.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Well, if that is so, I cannot characterize too strongly the attitude of the minister or of the person who has been guilty of such a breach of trust. I invite a person to discuss with me a document which is marked 'confidential' and he takes upon himself to print that document and publish it broadcast. Do I understand that the words which have been struck out, 'printed by order of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario ' have been struck out by my hon. friend or had they been struck out before he received the document?


James Davis Taylor: I would like, if the minister will permit me, to make another suggestion. I may say that these words were pencilled out when I received the document just as they are now. But when the minister says that he gave this Ontario minister the regulations as printed by Prof. Prince I want to say that the regulations as drafted by Prof. Prince were not these regulations, because I had a confidential copy of those regulations and they differ in many important particulars; so that this is not the version to which the minister refers.


Mr. GRAHAM.: Then why should they be published?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is still more serious. _ I understand that the hon. member had in his hands a document which purported to be the document which I had handed to the Minister of Public Works of Ontario and had discussed with him and which was marked 'confidential.' Is that not the document?


James Davis Taylor: I made no statement of that kind, because I was not aware that the minister had handed over anything to the Ontario government. I merely read that as a proposed regulation and mentioned that it came from an American source.
I may say that I have here a confidential document that I do not wish to read, which contains all the passages I read to the House, except that one about anything which these commissioners might do, making invalid any Act which this parliament had passed or might pass. These several quotations I made aTe contained in the Canadian draft.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That does not explain the situation. I understand that my hon. friend quoted from a document which had been published by the Ontario government and which purported to be a copy of a document which had been handed over to the Minister of Public Works of Ontario.


James Davis Taylor: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not mention the Minister of Public Works of Ontario at all. I do not know where they got that document.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Then my hon. friend was quoting from a document which came to him confidentially.


James Davis Taylor: It is not fair for the minister to say that. It was not given to me confidentially; it was given to me by a gentleman entirely disconnected with the Ontario legislature into whose hands it had passed I suppose in the ordinary course from some person authorized to receive it. I got it third or fourth hand.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would like to know very much where it was obtained. The document was marked confidential and it was given to the Minister of Public Works for Ontario with a view of having a confidential discussion on it.


James Davis Taylor: I did not read from the Canadian draft to which the hon. minister refers. I read from the document the minister has in his hands now, which is the American draft.


Samuel Barker: The paper the minister is reading from now is simply a reprint of what the United States papers had published as coming from the United States authorities.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, but I understand my hon. friend has another document which seems to have found its way to the public.


Samuel Barker: It is a Teprint of the United States document.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is another document also.


James Davis Taylor: I know of no other document; that is the only document to which I have referred.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman has been quoting from a document which purports to contain the draft regulations made by Professor Prince. Where did he get that?


James Davis Taylor: I stated very distinctly that the draft regulations were not made by Professor Prince and I said that we were allowing the American commissioner to make the draft and that we were only in the position of being revisers of it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Nobody was ever authorized to publish any draft regulations prepared by Professor Prince, and if they were made public it was done without authority. I have always refrained from discussing these regulations before the House because I maintain that so long as such negotiations are not embodied in the treaty and the treaty signed it is not proper to discuss them or make them public. I hold that it is proper procedure that the negotiations between the two contracting parties should be .kept secret until the time comes to give them to the public. It is not right that we should discuss any regulations which are now the subject of negotiations with a foreign country and indeed such discussion might lead to serious embarrassment. When the treaty is signed, then if the regulations are not considered proper the government is^ liable to censure, but until they are embodied in the treaty we should not discuss them in parliament or in public. My hon. friend from New Westminster has stated the interests of Canada are injuriously affected by this treaty. On the contrary, it is my opinion that the securing of uniformity in the fishery regulations on international waters is desirable not only for this country but the for United States. I will not say we got the best of it, but I do say that we gained a great point when we secured a treaty which provided for uniformity. In some cases there was no close seasons on the American side and as a result the fisheries were being depleted, but now it is hoped we will have uniformity in the regulations for the close season, for the size of the mesh and in other respects calculated to preserve the fisheries. That is what we had in view when we adopted the treaty. My hon. friend (Mr. J. D. Taylor) spoke especially of the fisheries of Puget Sound but he knows very well that the fish that go up the Fraser river have to pass * through American waters.


James Davis Taylor: Not all of them but a large quantity of them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I should think that the greater number of the fish that go up the Fraser river pass through the straits of Juan de Fuca and Puget Sound in American waters.


James Davis Taylor: Not the larger quantity, but a large quantity of them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Our object was to get the American authorities to pass regulations so that the fish would not be destroyed before entering the FraseT river, and so I say that the treaty must have the effect of protecting the fisheries in which the city of New Westminster is so greatly interested.


James Davis Taylor: Is there anything in this treaty which aims at protecting the sockeye salmon on their way up the Fraser river?


C523 COMMONS
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: 
George Henry Bradbury: That is a point on which the department and myself have differed for years. We do not require one dollar of American capital to develop the fisheries of Lake Winnipeg. That is not expensive work like delving into the earth for minerals. All a man has to do is to put his nets into the water and take the fish out. The money the Americans have put in does not amount to anything of consequence and they are depleting us of our wealth.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think we ought not to go too far in that respect. There is some American capital which we welcome to develop our natural resources, including our fisheries. In the maritime provinces and on the Pacific coast, we are glad to see American capital coming in to develop our fisheries. I admit, however, that in our west the position is not absolutely the same, but should we on that account boycott American capital? I agree with my hon. friend that the proper policy is-the fish for the settlers and the Canadian consumers in the first place and that is the policy I have always tried to carry out. But when our Canadian settlers and Canadian consumers have got all the fish they require, should we remain absolutely idle and not allow the surplus to be exported?


George Henry Bradbury: But the fish are gone.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I shall come to that in a moment. While we should not permit American companies to deplete our fisheries should we not, when our home consumption is satisfied, and there is still fish for export without depleting our lakes, permit Americans to fish in our country? I see my hon. friend assents to that proposition, so that we are not very far apart. Well, that is the policy we have adopted. My hon. friend says that the fishery on Lake Winnipeg is being depleted for lack of proper protection. Of course we have to be guided by the reports that are made to us, and I do not find by these reports that my hon. friend's statement is well founded. I have here the report of the department for last year, and the values of our fisheries in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta are there given as follows:
1898	$ 715,000
1900		 718,150
1901		 958,410
1902		 1,198,437
1903		 1,478,665
1904		 1,716,977
1905		 1,811,570
1906		 1,492,923
1907		 968,422
These figures do not show that the lake is being depleted. But the hon. gentleman says the fish are smaller in size and the revenue is less. But I find that we have to-day from the lakes in the west, the same revenue as we had before, and even larger. The hon. gentleman has quoted from the report of Mr. Young, which shows why there was less last year than before. Here is what Mr. Young says.
Throughout the summer season the weather conditions were very unfavourable for successful operations of the fisheries, which created a shortage in the catch. My observations led me to believe that the shortage was entirely due to the above cause, and not from the depletion of the fishery.
That is the situation. Of course I have a great deal of confidence in the opinion of my hon. friend, but the officer of the department, Mr. Young, who is also a very efiicient officer, reports to the contrary. At all events, there seems to be doubt as to whether the regulations are being carried out. There seems to be doubt as to the cause of the depletion, and in view of the representations which were made by the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for Dauphin, the Minister of the Interior and myself decided to appoint a commission to investigate the question of fisheries in the Northwest, and to find out the best means of protecting them. I was glad to hear my hon. friend say the other day in the committee that the two local men appointed there were good men.


George Henry Bradbury: Would the minister tell us the powers of that commission?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They have as extensive powers as it is possible to give them. I did not want to restrict their powers in any way, I gave them powers by order in council to investigate the whole question of the fisheries. Some suggestion has even been made that some of our officers were protecting the American companies, and I gave in structions to these commissioners thoroughly to investigate that charge also, so that when the commission reports there may no longer be any doubt as to whether the regulations are being properly carried out. My hon. friend referred to Mr. Wilmot's com- [DOT] ments on some of the regulations. Well, I see that Mr. Wilmot makes a very import-, ant recommendation, namely, that the present close season from October 5 to Novem-.

ber 30 be extended. I may say to my hon. friend that since 1907 when I took charge of the department I have had a regulation passed extending the close season, in order to protect the fisheries, from the 30th of November to the 15th December. I know my hon. friend will approve of that. He will see that the department is anxious to protect the fisheries, and to protect those natural resources of our country which are among the most valuable in the west, where there are so many valuable resources. Since I have been in the department I have given this matter a great deal of consideration. My hon. friend has spoken of Lac du Bonnet. The same regulations prevail there as on the Red river.
I believe in making that inquiry, because I understood that nothing had been made known by Prof. Prince as to what the regulations were, and nothing would be made known until he and Dr. Jordon had finally agreed upon them.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: What I complained of in regard to the publication of that document by the Ontario government was that, instead of giving it as a tentative draft, they gave it as the regulations passed under the treaty.


David Henderson: I do not understand that the Ontario government published these regulations as those that had been decided upon.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, the heading says


George Henry Bradbury: Lac du Bonnet was one of1 the portions that was set aside by Mr. Wilmot years ago, but that was invaded by one of the companies who fish openly in that lake.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: When we saw those companies were going there we took immediate steps to provide a close season in order to protect the fisheries.


David Henderson: Before this subject is disposed of I would like to say a few words. The hon. minister seems to meet this question with a great deal of warmth on account of what my hon. friend from Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has said. I do not think there was any occasion for the minister to have his French blood warmed up, as he apparently did. I am not here to defend the Ontario government-they look after their own affairs-as to whether there was or was not a breach of faith in connection with the document which has beeen read. I happen to know a little about it, because I felt a deep interest in these matters and had occasion to make inquiry. I understood that Dr. Jordan, the American commissioner, who is associated with our own very excellent commissioner, of whom I cannot speak too highly, Professor Prince, had drafted regulations under the treaty made by the King of England and the people of the United States. These regulations, as Dr. Jordan had drafted them, got into the press of the United States, and many people I know, there were many people in my _ own province who were interested _ in fisheries, were led to believe or got the idea that these were actually the regulations approved by the two commissioners. I was written to with regard to these regulations and asked if they had actually been completed. Some of the regulations suggested by Dr. Jordan were not at all such as our people would desire, and our people were indignant, and appealed to me to ascertain from the government here whether those were the actual regulations and whether they had been approved by this government. Well, I did not trouble any member of the government Mr. BRODEUR.


David Henderson: That may be but 1 do not so understand it.


Mr. BURRELL.: I did not understand that the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor) stated it m that
way.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, the document shows it. It states positively-


David Henderson: That is said by the Americans.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it is said by the Ontario government. It says on the face of the document that it is printed by order of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, by the King's Printer of Ontario.


David Henderson: I understand that that is simply a reprint of something published in the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: It might as well have been published in Greenland; there is nothing to show it is published in the United States.


David Henderson: There .is nothing to show it is an original document. I do not so understand it and I take it to be nothing more than a reprint of matter copied from American newspapers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Oh no.


David Henderson: However, I am not here to defend the Ontario government in any thing they have done. The minister has read this document and I need not read it again, I take it simply to be a reprint of something that appeared in American newspapers.


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing to show that.


David Henderson: I think the Minister of Finance could draw on his imagination sufficiently to see it there.


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend says he is drawing on his imagination I am content.


David Henderson: I think I have a right to draw on my imagination because we know the regulations have not been concluded.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But they are published as being.


David Henderson: The minister has stated that. I think he knows that regulations have been discussed very clearly as between him and the Ontario government I do not stand sponsor for the Ontario government.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We had better say it is a typographical error.


David Henderson: I will not say that, because I take this to be nothing more than a reprint of something that anneared in the American papers. _ The Minister was certainly very warm in discussing this matter with the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Taylor), and seemed to reflect upon him very severely for having read this document, although I gathered that the hon. member (Mr. J. D. Taylor), understood it as nothing more than a reprint of what appeared on the other side of the line, and that possibly the Ontario government thought it was a wise thing to let Canadians know what the Americans were suggesting. I have heard something to-night with regard to the treaty at which I confess I am surprised. The treaty, it appears, was negotiated in the first instance between the King of England and the people of the United States. I was not aware until to-night that the treaty had even been submitted to the Canadian government. I did not think that we had had so much to say in our own affairs that even the members of the government should have had this privilege of looking over the articles of that treaty. I differ a good deal from the hon. gentleman. He thinks we are given a great deal of freedom by Great Britain, that we have a right to look after our own affairs in matters of such vital importance as the obtaining of our food supplies. My impression is that the government should have gone a great deal further. I think that this treaty not only should have been submitted to the government but should have been submitted to parliament and if I mistake not, in 1888 when the Fishery treaty was negotiated by Sir Charles Tupper, that treaty was submitted to the Canadian parliament and to the Senate of the United States for ratification. And now at this date we are not permitted to know what the treaty contains until it is signed, sealed, and delivered; our rights may be taken away from us without our having the slightest knowledge of what is being done. I confess I 207
am too much of a democrat to permit that way of making treaties.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The treaty of Washington contained tariff changes, so it had to be submitted to parliament.


David Henderson: It had very extensive relations to fisheries. My recollection is that the first year I was in parliament it -was submitted to this House for its ratification and it would also be submitted to the Senate of the United States for its ratification. That was a very important treaty.
I think that something the same course should be taken in this case. If we have no precedent for it, surely we can make one; I think the time has come when we ought to begin making precedents for ourselves. If Canada is a nation, as we are told, I think that we should exercise our rights as a nation. I confess, as I said before, that I am too much of a democrat to allow even the King to make our treaties without our knowledge. It is not right that we, the people of Canada, should know nothing about how our property is disposed of and how our rights are dealt with, until the document is signed, sealed and delivered and we cannot help ourselves. Matters pertaining to the everyday life of the fishermen along the great _ lakes are of very grave importance indeed to them. I presume that the same thing will occur in regard to the regulations.
I do not like all this secrecy, this working away in the dark. The regulations.
I iam informed, are to be completed and finally fixed and determined upon before parliament or any man outside of the government knows anything about them.
I do not like that idea. I believe that the regulations themselves ought to be a matter for discussion by the people's representatives, either to approve of them or disapprove of them. I very much fear, although I have every confidence in Professor Prince, that he may handicap some of our Canadian fishermen, and I will give you an illustration of how this may occur. It is not to be supposed that even a man with the knowledge and excellent judgment that Professor Prince has can possibly know all the little details. You will find fishermen along the coasts of Lake Ontario, Lake Huron and the rivers who can give him pointers with reference to this matter. I am told that Dr. Jordan is a man of very strong mind and that he will make a superhuman effort to get his own way. I do not say that Professor Prince is not an equal match for him, but what I was going to point out was that even in determining the size of the mesh of the net used to catch herring an eighth of an inch difference may be the difference between prosperity and starvation. Fishermen in my county tell me that if they increase the mesh one



eighth of an inch it means starvation to them. This is a very small item. Is it to be _supposed that Professor Prince is in a position to obtain the practical knowledge that will enable him to hold out against Professor Jordan upon a point like that ? That is the reason why we ought to see that these negotiations should not go on in the dark. I think that Dr. Jordan did a wise thing on the other side when he published his conclusions as to what he thought these regulations would be and brought them under the review of the people of the United States to have them discussed and see whether they would be approved of or not. I confess I speak with a good deal of hesitation because I have so much confidence in Professor Prince, but I believe that the government would be wise if they allow'ed the draft regulations approved by Professor Prince to be made public so that the newspapers of the country and members of the parliament could discuss this question and so that a proper solution of the whole question, because it is going to last for a good many years, may be arrived at before the document is finally signed and sealed and before the fate of our fishermen is determined upon. I think it is a matter of the very greatest importance and I am sure that the government will act wisely and that they will better serve the interests of the people if they adopt that suggestion. It is too late to talk upon this question any longer. We have had a good discussion on fishery matters. I know nothing about the fisheries in the Northwest, but I am going to ask the minister one question just for my information. What revenue do we get out of these fishery licenses from American companies who come into Canada? Do we get a revenue at all or is it anything worth while? They seem to take a great deal out of the country. The minister spoke about developing the fisheries but I do not see anything in developing the fisheries unless we develop some money for the country out of them. Simply letting them take the fish out of the lake is no advantage to this country. It is a disadvantage unless we get a very good license fee for the privilege of fishing.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Licenses are issued by the Dominion authorities and, of course, we get whatever revenue accrues from them.


George Taylor: It does not pay the
expenses of the inspectors.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: They are not excessive.


David Henderson: No idea what they are?	J


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I could not say.


Richard Blain: I want to say a word about the controversy in respect to the Minister of Public Works and the provincial government of Ontario. The minister Mr. HENDERSON.
was very heated in his references to the minister in the Ontario government. All I wish to say is that if my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries gave a document marked ' private and confidential' to the Minister of Public Works of Ontario I am quite sure there would be no breach of trust on the part of that gentleman. I would think it would only be fair for the minister to make no references in the way in which he has made them this evening until he receives some communication from the Minister of Public Works of Ontario. Turning over the document to which my hon. friend has referred I notice that 'Warwick Brothers & Rutter, Limited, Printers, Toronto,' were the printers who printed this document.


William Stevens Fielding: They are the printers for the legislature.


Richard Blain: That is all right. The statement that it was printed under the authority of the provincial government of Ontario is struck out. Therefore, my hon. friend has no right to make the statement in this House that it was printed under the authority of the provincial legislature of Ontario. The Minister of Finance must know full well that Warwick Brothers & Rutter do a great deal of printing, outside.


William Stevens Fielding: But they do not put
the King's Printer's name on it then.


Richard Blain: I am not debating that and I am not saying whether it is printed by the King's Printer in Toronto or not, but what I do say is that it was not, in my opinion, printed under the authority of the government of Ontario.


William Stevens Fielding: Is not every document bearing the name of the King's Printer of Ontario printed under public authority- under the authority of the government?


Richard Blain: I wish to say that the statement in the document that it was printed under the authority of the provincial government is struck out; therefore, I have the right to assume that it does not appear here as having been printed under the authority of the government of Ontario.


William Stevens Fielding: But the King's Printer name is still there.


John Allister Currie: Mr. Speaker, at this late hour I do not wish to continue the debate. However, I wish to offer one or two observations in reference to the fisheries on the great lakes. One point that is objectionable in the treaty is simply this that the United States government, whilst it pretended to have jurisdiction over the fisheries in these great lakes, had no jurisdiction whatever and any treaty which Professor Prince and Professor Jordan may make has not the force of authority as far as the fisheries on Lakes Huron, Superior

and Erie are concerned. These are matters of state rights and they are so recognized in the United States. The states control the fisheries along the international waters.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So long as there aTe no treaties, but when a treaty is made affecting the question of the fisheries or local rights the treaty prevails over everything else.


John Allister Currie: The minister knows well enough that the enforcing of any treaty rests with the state.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No.


John Allister Currie: If the minister is quite willing to stand up in his place and take the responsibility of saying that this treaty will be maintained by the United States government and that the state governments will not interfere with the regulations, of course, that objection fails.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say to my hon. friend on this point that the treaty formally provides that the federal authorities in the United States will have to carry out its regulations. They are not going to be enforced by the state authorities but by the central authority. It is their duty under the treaty and when the hon. gentleman raises the question of state and federal rights we have the opinion of Secretary Root that the authority belongs to the federal government and they formally undertake themselves to carry out that obligation. I am sure they will live up to their word.


John Allister Currie: That being the case, any regulations that are adopted by the joint commission will be carried out by the United States government and for that reason any objection on that score fails.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I might quote to my hon. friend article 3, which states that:
The two governments-
Meaning the British government, or the King, and the president of the United States.
-engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislative and executive action, with as little delay as possible, the regulations and restrictions with appropriate penalties for all breaches thereof.
That is their undertaking


John Allister Currie: If they fail and there is a conflict between state rights and federal authority on that matter the same as there is a conflict under the Waterways Treaty over the riparian rights at the Soo, which authority will prevail? The federal government has undertaken to see that the states will adopt the federal regulations, but there is no constitutional obligation on the states to do so.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I would not think for a moment that the United States would refuse to carry out a treaty entered into by the president with the consent of the Senate.


John Allister Currie: If the views of Prof. Prince as stated before the committee as to the preservation of the fish on the great lakes be carried out well and good, but if the proposed regulations will give the Americans reciprocal fishing rights all over the Canadian shore it will be a serious matter for the Canadian fishermen, and I do not think the minister himself would endorse it. Then, in the matter of including the north channel of the Georgian Bay as a portion of the International waters, immediately that was done the United States government threw open Lake Michigan to Canadian trade, which it had hitherto regarded as closed, for fear we would take stronger ground and close up the north shore fisheries from any possible interference on their part. The fishery question is undoubtedly of international importance, but for years we in Canada have been proceeding along well-defined lines for the protection of our fish, and now we have lots of fish and well protected fisheries and the Americans have no fish at all. It is believedJjy every one connected with the fisheries on the great lakes that the Americans wish to have international regulations now so as to endeavour, if possible, to share in our fish. We had regulations in Canada as to the size of the mesh and in the close season and other matters and we were carrying out our own views in that regard with satisfaction to ourselves and benefit to the country. In view of all this I fail to see any great necessity for the treaty, or for the regulations under it, and the minister will hardly deny that we will just be as well off if the commissioners arrive at no conclusion as if they do.


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

[Stage Direction]
Dredging, $326,500.
['I am not authorized to say who will go or who will stay, but I think the House will meet.']
Mr. JAMESON.: Where will the dredging be done in the maritime provinces?


William Pugsley: There will be dredging done at a number of places, amongst others at East river, near Pictou, Red islands, Petit de Gras, Cheticamp, Yarmouth, Mira-michi bay, the Restigouche, the mouth of the Gaspereau river, Shediac, the shoals upon the St. John river, the river Kenne-becasis, St. Andrews, St. George, and other places.


Mr. BARNARD.: What is the total vote for dredging in the maritime provinces?


William Pugsley: In the main estimates $230,000 and in the supplementary estimates $150,000.


George Henry Barnard: That is exclusive of the appropriation of the harbour of St. John?
Mr. PUGSLEY Yes.


George Henry Barnard: What is the total appropriation for dredging in British Columbia?


William Pugsley: $125,000 in addition to the $150,000 for the payment of the new dredge. In the supplementary estimates we have $150,000 for a further payment on that dredge and $25,000 additional to pay the balance required to operate the four dredges during the season.


John Allister Currie: Where will the dredging be done in Ontario?


William Pugsley: I have not yet decided as to all the different places where dredging will be done. There are very urgent demands for a great deal more than the appropriation will enable us to do. This year we will have to go slowly in dredging work. Last year we spent on dredging in Ontario and Quebec $675,000. This year there is appropriated only $380,000 for both provinces. There are a number of places where dredging is urgently required; for instance, Waubaushene, Kincardine, Goderich, Pickering, Port Hope, Port Burwell, Rondeau, Sarnia and others. I intend to go through the urgent demands that we have received and take up the reports of the engineers upon them. There is also dredging urgently required at Telegraph Point on the route to Belleville. The necessity for dredging seems to be increasing every year as the vessels become larger, and there also seems to be evidence that the waters of the lakes are gradually lowering. The water on Lake Huron, I am informed, is two or three feet lower than it was two or three years ago.


Mr. MARSHALL.: Has the work at Port Burwell been commenced?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Allister Currie: At the town of Col-lingwood a large sum has been spent for dredging and a small portion remains unfinished. I would like to ask the minister if this has been taken into consideration and if there is a prospect of the work being finished?


William Pugsley: I have given very careful consideration to the necessities of Col-lingwood harbour. While a great deal has been done for that harbour, $700,000 or $800,000 having been expended upon it, and the harbour having been greatly improved, there is still room and necessity for further improvement; but just at this moment I cannot hold out the hope to my hon. friend that anything further will be done this year, because of the very urgent necessities of other places.


William Pugsley: 


John Allister Currie: A great deal of government money has been spent on Colling-wood harbour, and after the work has been completed with the exception of a small portion, it is a pity that this should be allowed to impair the usefulness of what has been already done. Two or three months' work of a medium-sized dredge would nrob-ably finish the work. If this is not done, the money expended to make a good harbour will have been to some extent useless. The depth of the harbour is generally 20 feet, but there are a few places where that depth has hardly been reached, and it would be advisable to have the channel swept and these rough spots removed. Then, there are some angles that require to be rounded. This work was not done for a political object, for this reason, that many years ago the town of Collingwod entered into an agreement with the government to have the work carried on, the town agreeing to pay a portion of the cost, and the Grand Trunk Railway Company was to pay another portion. The work has been carried on for ten or twelve years, and the town has paid its portion of the cost, while the Grand Trunk Railway Company has not paid anything. As a business proposition it is only fair that the work should be completed, because the harbour is one through which a great deal of business is done, and the fact that it is in the constituency which I represent should make no difference. If the minister will do business in that way he cannot expect members on this side of the House to aid him very much in passing his estimates.


William Pugsley: There must be an effort to treat the different parts of the country with some degree of justice. We cannot expend all the money available in a few ports. Collingwood has been treated very generously by this government, and the harbour has been made an excellent one by the work done. The work is all rock, very expensive work, requiring blasting. To make Collingwood harbour an ideal harbour, as we would like to do, would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more. All I can say is that the appropriation for dredging is limited, that I am considering carefully the demands of different sections, and that I am not at this moment prepared to say whether or not I shall be able to provide for any further work in Collingwood harbour this season.


John Allister Currie: 
William Pugsley: I recognize that money can be expended to the public advantage at Collingwood and in many other places; and if this were a year when the revenues were buoyant, I would have made provision for further work at Collingwood. But this year we have been obliged to cut our estimates very materially, and I have to consider very carefully where the work is most urgently required. All I can say is that after the estimates have been passed, whether before or at the close of the session I intend to go very carefully through the requirements of the different ports, and will endeavour, with the little money at my command, to have the work done where it will be to the best possible public advantage. If it be more desirable to do more work at Collingwood than at some other places, I shall give its claims favourable consideration. More than that I cannot say at present.


John Allister Currie: I would like to ask whether any representations have been made to the government by the people of Collingwood to have this work completed and what these representations were, and whether the department has made any inquiry into the matter, and what the resident engineer, Mr. Sims, reported.


William Pugsley: I took occasion to visit Collingwood myself last year when I examined very carefully the harbour to see what work was done. I also conferred with Mr. Sing, the resident engineer and was im: pressed with the desirability of doing fur-tber work there, but I am not impressed with the absolute necessity of doing it this year and neglect more urgent work in other places.


John Allister Currie: Have there been any representations since then, because I understand an accident has occurred since the minister's visit.


William Pugsley: I have not been informed of that.


John Allister Currie: Does the minister state that his department has had no report of trouble in that channel since his visit?


William Pugsley: My deputy informs me that there has not been any report of any accident there lately.


John Allister Currie: Was the department not notified of trouble there last August, because the work was not completed? Were no representations made last fall to the government by men interested that a certain amount was required for work to be done to complete the haTbour?


William Pugsley: If my friend will put a question in the House I shall be glad to get the information for him, but as I am

not making special provision for Colling-wood, I have not got that information with me. As he has brought the matter to my attention, I shall make inquiries and give the information to-morrow or later. I will say further that as he has declared that an accident has occured through boulders being in the channel, I shall have that looked into very carefully.


John Allister Currie: Does the minister expect that his estimates ought to go through before that answer is given?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Allister Currie: He had better let the item stand until he has brought down the information.


William Pugsley: That would be very unreasonable and nothing would be gained by it.


Mr. SUTHERLAND.: There are many points along the frontier which have very urgent claims on the minister. Take, for instance, the Detroit river, and it would be very unreasonable to claim that we should hold up the estimates because of that claim for work to be done at the mouth of the Detroit river, where there is an enormous traffic, just as enormous as on the whole international boundary.


John Allister Currie: Has any accident occurred in the channel of the Detroit river?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: There are frequent accidents there.


John Allister Currie: Through lack of water?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Because of the boulders in the channel.


John Allister Currie: Will the hon. gentleman mention one accident?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: I could not at the moment, but I could give the information later.


William Pugsley: There was an accident at Goderich harbour, and representations were made to the department on that account.	^


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Representations have been made by the Traffic Association with regard to the Detroit river.


George Taylor: The minister should have a special officer examine into the conditions at Collingwood, and have the work done there completed by the removal of the boulders. In view of what has been said about the town of Goderich and in view of the fact that it has contributed a certain amount and that the Grand Trunk Railway was to pay a certain amount, but has not done so, we should have the claims of that port looked into.


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: I will give the matter my attention.


Mr. THOBURN.: What has been expended on the harbour at Port Hope?


William Pugsley: I cannot tell the ex. act amount, but we will do what dredging is necessary at Port Hope. There has been a drifting in of silt which has somewhat blocked up the entrance. We intend to do what dredging is necessary to make a reasonably deep channel.


John Allister Currie: With reference to the harbour at Goderich, is it the intention of the government to remove the sunken pier that destroyed a vessel some months ago belonging to the Ontario government, and causing a loss of $15,000.


William Pugsley: When was that done?


John Allister Currie: A year ago last fall.


William Pugsley: That is ancient history, that has been built up long ago. We have made a fine breakwater there.


David Marshall: Is it the intention to spend any money dredging in Port Bruce this year?


William Pugsley: That is under consideration.


James Davis Taylor: Does this appropriation cover anything for dredging in the vicinity of Chilliwack on the Fraser river?


William Pugsley: We intend to do work upon the Fraser river, that is most urgently or immediately required, and it is not unlikely that some dredging will be done at Chilliwack.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to tell the Minister, because evidently it has not been brought to his attention, that the work is very urgently required at Chilliwack. In fact is was so urgently required that last October a special private dredge was hired to go up there and dredge out a channel so that the mail steamer might pass up to the wharf. The dredge hired by the government was being towed by a steamer drawing six or eight feet, but as there was only three feet of water or less near Chilliwack, the dredge could not get within ten miles of its destination, and so remained idle for many days and never reached Chilliwack. Unfortunately the elections came on before the dredge got there, and the day after the voting she was ordered back and never came to Chilliwack since. Some people regarded it as more or less of a joke that the abortive attempt was made at that particular time. But the necessity still remains, because in the winter time it is impossible for steamers to get within a mile of the proper landing place. The

whole trade of Chilliwack is now taxed about 50 cents a ton additional because of the want of this dredging. I am sure that if the minister would give attention to that, and see that a steamer should be able to get there at all seasons of the year, his action would be much appreciated by the people of Chilliwack. I would like also to call his attention to the desire of the peope of Agassiz that the stretch of river between Agassiz and Chilliwack should be dredged and snagged, so that it may be possible for freight boats to reach Agassiz. At present the people there are dependent solely on the Canadian Pacific Railway for the removal of their produce, and, as invariably happens when there is only one avenue of traffic, the rates are made so high as to be irksome. If the minister could do a trifling bit of dredging between Chilliwack, the present head of navigation, and Agassiz, the people could make shipments by water, with very great advantage.


William Pugsley: No one sympathizes more deeply than I do with the demand for dredging. I think there is no public work more important, or which can be made of greater benefit to the public. But we must be patient, we cannot do it all at once. I will note carefully the remarks of my hon. friend, and we will see just how soon it may be possible to do this work. In the meantime I will inquire as to the urgency.
I do not know whether we have any snag boat in that vicinity. We are doing a very important work upon the Fraser river. We have just purchased one of the most powerful dredges in the Pacific waters, perhaps as powerful as any in the Atlantic waters, capable of dredging about a thousand cubic yards per hour. This is for the improvement of the Fraser river. We have now four dredges for operation in British Columbia, outside the snag boats.


James Davis Taylor: The people on the Fraser will very much appreciate the action
of the department in providing that new dredge. But while it will be of great use to us, that work is of no direct advantage to the neighbourhood between Chilliwack and Agassiz.


Clarence Jameson: The minister has mentioned certain places in the maritime provinces where he proposes to do dredging but he did not mention Digby. Does he contemplate continuing the dredging operations that have been in progress there?


William Pugsley: We have been doing in Digby the dredging which is necessary for providing for crib sites. But just how much further work has been done this season I am not able to say. But I am inclined to think we will not be able to continue there for much more than a month longer during the present season. We have a special vote
for Digby, but it is not sufficiently large to enable us to continue during the whole season. I think probably that in about a month more we will have done all the work we can do during the present season.


Clarence Jameson: Is it proposed to do dredging at the Racquette?


William Pugsley: I am inclined to think not this year.


Clarence Jameson: Will the dredging that it is proposed to be done make the new works at the pier available for steamships entering the port?


William Pugsley: Yes, I think it would be sufficient to give reasonable accommodation.


Clarence Jameson: Will the work which is being done be up to the plans that were prepared?


William Pugsley: There will still be further dredging work to be done.
Slides and booms, $55,000.


William Pugsley: North Saskatchewan river booms and log storage works-this is a very important undertaking, and we are undertaking it not only from public necessity, but because the Dominion government is greatly interested in the timber which floats down the river. Then in the St. Maurice district we are making improvements to slide and boom works to facilitate the floating and storage of logs.


John Allister Currie: The minister states that the Dominion government is very much interested in the logs that float down the Saskatchewan. What is their interest?


William Pugsley: The Dominion government owiis the timber areas and receives stump age.


John Allister Currie: I understood that all timber limits in the west, except two or three trees, had been leased or sold to other parties.


William Pugsley: Not sold; my hon. friend is wrong. The Crown owns large areas.


John Allister Currie: Is timber being cut on these areas in sufficient quantities to justify the expenditure of money on booms, &c.? In Ontario and other provinces, when the lumbermen desire to handle logs they get permission and build their own booms.


William Pugsley: Not always; the government build some booms.


John Allister Currie: Wherer


William Pugsley: Along the Trent waterways, at Newcastle, up the Ottawa, on the St. Maurice in Quebec.


John Allister Currie: Possibly in Quebec.


William Pugsley: And in Ontario too.


John Allister Currie: I do not understand why, when the government have sold the timber up there these men do not build their own dams.


William Pugsley: The government owns the land, it receives stumpage and its revenue will be increased by having facilities to handle the lumber.
Miscellaneous, $527,000.


George Taylor: I do not see any item among these appropriations for monuments for one to the late lamented Hon. Sir John Thompson. Is it the intention of the government to put that in the supplementaries or to provide for it next year?


William Pugsley: Possibly it might be considered next year. It is not provided for now. I do not know what will be done with regard to it.


Haughton Lennox: These monuments are all for the grounds here?


William Pugsley: Yes, all on parliament hill, except the one at Brantford. There are a few items in the supplementary estimates, but the estimates are very small,
I am surprised myself that we have been able to make them so small. I may say, speaking in a general way, that there are no items whatever in the supplementaries for public works, except those which are most urgently required, such as making repairs or reconstruction. There are one or two cases where wharfs have been carried away by ice, and another case where a wharf which was torn away last fall has to be rebuilt. They are all works of the most urgent character.
Publio works-income, harbours and rivers, Nova Scotia-Port Hood harbour-closing northern entrance, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is a special work that I put in with a great deal of reluctance but it seemed to be absolutely necessary to prevent the harbour from filling up. This is the only special work there is in these supplementaries in the province of Nova Scotia.
Nova Scotia-harbours and rivers generally-to provide for urgently needed works, viz.: enlargements, works of reconstruction, and other improvements, $25,000.


William Pugsley: This is to complete work where the timber has actually been bought or where contracts have been entered into, and includes no new works.
Ontario-harbours and rivers generally- to provide for urgently needed works, viz.: enlargements, works or reconstruction and other improvements, $26,300.


Mr. THORNTON.: Is it the intention of the minister to do any work at Newcastle?


John Allister Currie: 


William Pugsley: No, I think not this year although I am not quite sure. I will find out.


Charles Jonas Thornton: There is a very important work to be done there.


William Pugsley: I know, but it will have to stand over the same as some others.


Charles Jonas Thornton: The dredge wintered there and unless the harbour is>
deepened it will not be able to get away.


William Pugsley: She will not be the only dredge that will be idle this year.
British Columbia - harbours and rivers generally-to provide for urgently needed works, viz.:	enlargements, works of reconstruction and other improvements, $3,000.


Martin Burrell: I would like to ask the minister if there is to be anything done between Quesnelle and Fort George? There is a work that is partly done and I believe it was promised to make the river more navigable between those points. I believe that another boat has been put on and that there is some difficulty in connection with navigation. It is necessary for some more rock to be removed. I would like to know what the government intend to do.


William Pugsley: We did some very useful work there last year which greatly improved navigation, but I regret that I have not been able to make provision for it this year owing to our cutting down the appropriations.


Martin Burrell: Does the minister expect to go on with it next year?


William Pugsley: We will not this year, but I do not see any reason why we might not hope that next year we will be able to make some provision for it.


Martin Burrell: I would like to ask the minister a question in reference to dredging the Okanagan river between Okanagan lake and Dog lake. There was an item in the estimates of $10,000 and I have received inquiries as to what is being done by the government engineer in connection with this work. It will take a sum largely in excess of the amount which has been appropriated to make a work of any practical use and I am anxious to know what the department is doing.


William Pugsley: Provision was made last year for improving the channel between Okanagan lake and Dog lake, but owing to the fact that Dog lake is about 14 feet lower than Okanagan lake, I, myself, after considering very carefully the report of the engineers, have very grave doubts as to the desirability of proceeding with the work. I am inclined to think that it will not be proceeded with at the present time and I

will tell my hon. friend why. I am afraid 1 that if the outlet of Okanagan lake is lower- ' ed so as to give a free run to the water [DOT] the result will be to lower the level of Okanagan lake and that might necessitate dredging.	i


George Taylor: Put a lock there.


William Pugsley: A lock might be put there but that would be quite an expensive operation. I am inclined to think that it might be better to delay proceeding with the work until a more careful study is made of the conditions. There is always the danger, when you attempt to alter natural conditions with the idea of improving the navigation so as to give access to Dog lake, that the result will be to materially injure the navigation of Okanagan lake which will be very much to be regretted.


John Allister Currie: I understand the length of the work contemplated is only a few hundred feet.


William Pugsley: I think it is about two or three miles.


Martin Burrell: Of course my object was to ascertain if the work was being thoroughly looked into. A great many people there realize that it will lower the lake. The people at Kelowna would be willing to have it lowered but they feel that as the work would probably involve a large expenditure of money a definite and well considered plan shoulcl be prepared and they are anxious to know if steps are being taken in that direction.


William Pugsley: I am rather inclined to think that we will not do any work this year but that we will allow the appropriation to stand.


Martin Burrell: There is another matter that I want to touch on in connection with the protection of navigable streams in British Columbia. The matter has been brought to the attention of the government before and I would like to refer to it just for a moment. As the minister is probably aware there have been claims put forward by the province of British Columbia in connection with large expenditures by the provincial government on the Fraser and Columbia rivers. I would like to call the minister's attention to the following correspondence which will emphasize the point that I desire to make:
13th February, 1908.
Revelstoke and Chilliwack Districts.
Sir,-I herewith beg to confirm telegrams which passed between us recently, as follows :-
To the Honourable the Minister of Public Works, Ottawa, Ont.
31st January, 1908.
Immediate necessity exists-carry on works costing five thousand dollars to protect bank
of Fraser river at Chilliwhack. This government consented last year to contribute five thousand dollars, Dominion government contributing like amount for similar protection Fraser bank at Matsqui. Will your government aid the work at Chilliwhack to extent one-half estimated cost namely two thousand five hundred dollars?
(Signed) FRED. J. FULTON,
Chief Commissioner.
February* 4, 1908.


Fred.   J.@: Fulton,
Chief Commissioner, Victoria,
Re your telegram January thirtieth, kindly furnish reasons why federal government should assist in work requested at Chilliwhack. Is this net a matter for provincial authorities?
(Sgd.) WM. PUGSLEY, Minister.
4th February, 1908.
Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
Minister of Public Works, Ottawa.
Reply your telegram this date; reason work required is that Fraser a navigable river and should properly be entirely undertaken federal government. Precedents at Revelstoke on Columbia and Matsqui, on Fraser.
(Sgd.) FRED. J. FULTON,
Chief Commissioner.
And have now to acknowledge your reply of the 6th inst., reading as follows -
Ottawa, Feb. 6, 1908.
F. J. Fulton,


Chief Commissioner L.: & W.,
Victoria.
Have considered request re Chilliwhack and am prepared to recommend to council that federal government aid work there to extent one-half estimated cost, namely, two thousand five hundred dollars under same condi' tions as Matsqui.
(Sgd.) WILLIAM PUGSLEY,
.	Minister of Public Works.
i And for which I beg to extend my thanks.
Hon. Wm. Pugsley,
' Minister of Public Works, b	Ottawa, Ont.
' In this connection I desire to draw your \ attention to the fact that on the 13th Sep-1 tember, 1907, a letter was addressed to you 1 by myself giving the amounts expended by 3 this government in protection works at Rev-1 elstoke on the Columbia river, and at Chilli-3 wack on the Fraser river, up to that time. . The amount for Chilliwack, therein speci-t fied as being $16,931.79, was inserted through an oversight, as this amount was for protection work at another point and one where the work would have to be provided for provincially. I find, however, that in a previ-s ous letter to the Minister of Public Works, . under date the 8th February, 1907, signed by Hon. R. G. Tatlow, Commissioner of Lands and Works, the expenditures for Chilliwhack 3 up till the end of the year 1906 are correctly enumerated, and totalled the sum of $12,396.58. In addition to this amount there was s expended on similar work at this point dur-k ing the year 1907, $110.26, and to the end of

January of the present year, $136.50, making a total to the 31st January, 1908, of $12,643.34 expended in the construction of works to prevent the encroachment of the Fraser river in order to secure the safety of the Chilli-whack dyke. This sum, together with the expenditure for Eevelstoke stated in my letter of the 13th September before mentioned, namely, $39,416.20, make a sum total of $82,059.54. I may add that for the remainder of the present year there is an estimated expenditure of $5,000 to aid in further protection works at Chilliwack.
It will not be necessary for us to review the grounds upon which this government requests the Dominion to reimburse this province in the amount above stated. A reference to the communication of the 8th February, 1907, herein referred to, will demonstrate the strong claims of the province in this regard, and I can only urge that you give the whole question your consideration at an early date, as it is most desirable that a proper understanding be reached regarding same.
I beg to urge, in addition to the above, the question of the Dominion government assuming the whole expenditure of the protection works at Matsqui and Chilliwhack, and that the federal government will be pleased to reimburse this province in the total sum thus expended, as well as to assume, in future, any works necessary to prevent any encroachment of the rivers in question on their banks.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Your obedient servant, FRED. J. FULTON, Chief Commissioner of L. & W.
A reply was received to this, dated Ottawa, 21st April, 1908, over the signature of J. B Hunter, acting deputy minister, stating that the department could not see is way clear to make payment, on account of the fact that the work in question had not been authorized.
I bring this matter up because it is a question of very great importance to the whole province and in order to ask what the intention of the government is, especially in view of the fact that this session the government, on the authority of the Minister of Justice, stated in answer to a, question put by my hon. friend (Mr. J. d'. Taylor) that the federal government claimed the foreshores on navigable rivers. If that is the fact of course it makes the position as set forth in the correspondence absolutely unassailable, namely, that as to these sums which are voted for the protection of the river banks we can legitimately call on the government through the Minister of Public Works to reimburse. I would be glad to have a statement from the Minister of Public Works in regard to this matter.


William Pugsley: Did I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Minister of Justice stated as a general proposition that the Dominion government owns the foreshores of navigable rivers?


James Davis Taylor: That question was answered by the Minister of Justice after


Martin Burrell: three weeks' deliberation, and his answer was that the federal government asserts jurisdiction over all foreshores within the railway belt of British Columbia.


William Pugsley: That is a different proposition; they asserted ownership because they own the land in the railway belt.


Martin Burrell: The rivers I have mentioned are in the railway belt.


William Pugsley: The question raised by the hon. gentleman is of very great importance because of the liability which would devolve upon the federal government if it assumed as a matter of duty the protection of the banks of navigable rivers. If it assumed that liability why might not the city of Montreal make a claim for the building of revetment walls to prevent property being flooded in the city. The government may take steps for the protection of its own property by protecting the banks of rivers, but that would be from motives of self-interest and not as a result of the federal authority. My hon. friend is now presenting the claim of the provincial government against the Dominion because this river is navigable at these points. I would understand that people who are interested in the protection of the banks must be the persons who have acquired the property, and that therefore the ownership is no longer with the Dominion government.


Martin Burrell: I gather from the correspondence I have read that the government has already admitted the principle by agreeing to pay one-half. The contention we make is, in view of the declaration that the federal government own the foreshores, that it falls legitimately within their scope to provide the necessary protection to the banks from erosion. I should think they would certainly be responsible for that. It is an important matter and I should like a a clear declaration from the minister with regard to it.	.
Mr. PUGSLEY The matter is important but the fact that this is within the railway belt cannot make any difference if the Dominion government has disposed of its property and is no longer interested as riparian owner.


Martin Burrell: There is a good deal not disposed of.


William Pugsley: Under the British North America Act the federal government has control of navigation, which means the regulation of shipping and everything that pertains to navigation; but the question of the erosion of the banks of a river is a question of injury to property and has, of course, nothing to do with navigation. It is true that this government did agree to pay a portion of the cost of the improve-

ments which were made at one place, but it does not follow that it is bound to assume the cost, even in whole or in part, of other improvements. I was obliged to inform the hon. member for New Westminster, who desired certain improvements at Ladner, further down the Fraser river, that I thought it was a matter for the local authorities to attend to. Only a short time ago my hon. friend from Saguenay and Chicoutimi presented a petition appealing for protection of a portion of the banks of the St. Lawrence, because it was believed there might be a landslide and great injury to property and perhaps loss of life; and I had to take the same ground. My hon. friend from Dauphin called my attention to the fact that some years ago this government had undertaken the work of lowering Lake Manitoba, and I was obliged to state that notwithstanding that, I did not think that a federal work. A short time ago, on the representation of residents of Fort McLeod, an amount was put in the estimates for protection work there; but the amount was dropped, and I instructed my deputy to inform the mayor that I was not able to do that work at present, as I considered it a work of a local character. With the growth of towns and villages along the banks of navigable rivers, if the federal government were to. undertake to protect the shores of all these rivers from erosion, many millions would be required to pay the cost, and it is not unreasonable to take the ground that the time has arrived when the provincial governments and the local authorities might be fairly called on to undertake this work themselves. I do not shut the door on all applications or say that in no case shall assistance be given as long as I am minister; but I refuse to recognize this as a federal obligation rather than a local or provincial obligation. Therefore, I am not able to hold out any hope that the claim of the British Columbia government for improvements done by that government on the Fraser river will be recognized. We are prepared to assume to the full our obligation to improve the means of navigation, but I do not think we should go further and assume obligations for works of a purely local or provincial nature, such as those my hon. friend has called my attention to.


James Davis Taylor: I cannot say that the reply of the hon. minister is entirely unexpected, because we in British Columbia have become so accustomed to the Dominion Government shuffling out of their obligations; but we think the time has come when we should enter a protest against the continuance of the disregard of solemn obligations. Our claim on the government' for this expenditure comes
under several heads. In the first place, we invite the minister to occupy the position of his own government's clioos-[DOT]i'ng, that is, to stand in the position of proprietor having proprietary rights over all the railway lands in the railway belt of British Columbia. I am not here to argue a point of law in that respect. As an ordinary Canadian citizen who has given some attention to this subject, and who knows the terms of the grant of the railway belt to the federal government, I do not think that position is tenable. But *the fact that it is taken by the federal government is interfering with the right of the province of British Columbia to enjoy certain privileges within that railway belt. It seems to me not logical on the part of the minister to say that the provincial government should be at the expense of protecting the foreshores owned or claimed to be owned by the federal government. It seems to me the federal government must abandon one position or the other.


William Pugsley: Has not the land at Matsqui been disposed of by the federal government? I am informed that it doe3 not own a foot of land there.


James Davis Taylor: The federal government has disposed of a considerable quantity of land there, although not by any means all the land affected; but that to my mind only makes the situation worse, because it was disposed of to settlers who had a right to expect that the government who sold it to them would use ordinary precautions to protect them against the action of the Fraser river. The Dominion government claim that the provincial government parted with all its interests in the land in the railway belt in consideration of money paid to the province at the time of union, and it says that it cannot interfere to protect its own foreshores against the ravages of the Fraser river. Another reason for the appeal of the people of British Columbia is that this claim has to do with navigation, because if the channel of the Fraser river had been kept free and controlled as it should be from the mouth to Agassiz, the erosion of the banks would not have occurred, but there would have been a free flow of water down the river without the interruption caused by the accumulation of sand at the sand heads. The third reason is that part of our pact with the federal government is that British Columbia is to receive from the federal government such advantages as are allowed to other provinces and we have in every report of the minister the statement of officers of his department that in the other provinces this government has undertaken the responsibility of protecting lands from ero-

sion by the action of rivers. I will quote two or three instances. $1,500 was voted as an appropriation to protect the shores of the Baddeck river in Nova Scotia from erosion. The report states that the appropriation was made without any official knowledge of the requirements; in other words, they made it, not because the case was urgent, but simply to be good fellows. To do that work the sum of $1,500 was voted for expenditure during 1007-8 and the report goes on to say:
As the appropriation was made without any official knowledge as to requirements, an examination of the river at that point had to he made to ascertain what was to be done with the amount available, and it was decided, in order to prevent further damages by the river during the freshets, to divert the course of the river into an older and straighter channel.
That had nothing to do with navigation and yet that expenditure was made. Then we come to the Bear river, Annapolis county, Nova Scotia, and we find that money was spent there, not in improving navigation but in removing the upper portion of an old pier of a highway bridge which was rebuilt by the provincial government about 12 years agcr on a site about 300 feet further up stream. Also in rebuilding in substantial pile work, the dropping pier on the down stream side of the swing span of the highway bridge. This I take from the report of the department. Then we come to the St. Louis river in the province of Quebec, and I find in the report:
During the spring high water, the river St. Louis spreads over the farming land from the canal feeder to the village of St. Louis de Gouzague, a distance of about 7 miles and thus causes considerable damage. During the summer, the river often overflows, especially after a heavy rain storm, and extensive fields of promising crops have been entirely lost.
You will notice that there is nothing about navigation there and yet the government does this work.
During 1905-6 some 5,000 cubio yards of rock and hard pan were blasted and removed in the making of a cut 700 feet long, 40 feet wide and of an average depth of 5 feet. General dredging including that of blasted materials was done for a length of about 1.500 feet. Expenditure during the year was $7,101.74.
Then on the same piece of work the government expended in 1906-7 $7,111.73, and the following year $7,205 was spent there simply to prevent these lands being damaged by the overflow of the St. Louis river, and these were lands in which the government had no proprietary interest whatever. Taking all the expenditures, and I could cite many others, we have a very special case in British Columbia. We ap-Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
peal to the proprietor of the lands who sold
them to the present occupants to protect them from damage caused by their neglect in not keeping open the channel of the river and also on the strength of their solemn obligations to discharge in British Columbia all those obligations which they discharge in the other provinces.


William Pugsley: I do not want my hon. friend to assume that I am actuated by any disposition to deal differently with British Columbia from the other provinces. Very probably if our revenues were buoyant, there might be many works which would be done with the approval of this parliament, which might not be considered as wholly federal in their character. Take, for instance, the improvements in the Nation river. The work has been done there at different times to a limited extent and the same may be said with regard to the Richelieu river, but it does not follow that because such work may be done to a limited extent in other provinces, that imposes on the federal government the obligation to do all works of that character which may be required to be done. The federal government has also done work of this kind in British Columbia as well as in the other provinces. We have paid certain amounts to the government of British Columbia for work done in other places besides Matsqui. We have done work on the Columbia river and have spent many thousands of dollars in that province on works of this character. But it does not follow that because we do it in some instances we should do it in all. If we had plenty of money, we might not draw the line very closely between what might be called federal and what might be called provincial works. But at present I do not feel that this is work of a federal character which we are called on to do. It is work which, in the other provinces, is largely attended to by the provincial governments or municipalities. Take the city of Ottawa, they do work to protect the people from the flooding of the Rideau river, but if we are called upon to do this work, why might not the inhabitants of Gatineau Point call upon us to build protection walls to prevent their property being flooded by the overflow of the Gatineau?


James Davis Taylor: I do not think that is quite the same.


William Pugsley: In the case my hon. friend has referred to, the river is simply washing away the bank. The same thing has been occurring for years on the St. John river, New Brunswick. There the highways are washed away by the flooding of that river over its banks, but I never heard of any claim on the Dominion to reimburse the local authorities for the cost of repairing those highways. A good deal

depends on the magnitude of the work and the financial ability of the local authorities and also upon the conditions of the Dominion revenue.
Dredging-maritime provinces	$150,000
"	Quebec and Ontario.. .. 150,000
"	British Columbia	 25,000
To pay Beatty & Sons in full and final settlement of all claims for alterations made to boilers of three dredges built by them under contract of April, 1898	 1,500


Clarence Jameson: What work is to be done for that item of $150,000 in the maritime provinces?


William Pugsley: It is for contract work which last year was not completed. This will take in Fourchu, Mirami-chi bay, the la Havre river near Bridgewater and other places I mentioned in dealing with the main estimates. The amount in the main estimates is sufficient to keep the government dredges at work. This $150,000 will enable us to do some work at different points but not nearly what requires to be done, and a good many dredges will be necessarily idle during a considerable part of the season.


Clarence Jameson: Is it proposed to do any work on the breakwater at Saulniersville, Digby county, in the way of removal of stones? I drew attention to the fact that it is necessary to do some work there and wrote the minister full particulars regarding it. The expenditure would only be $150, but because there are stones at the outer end of the breakwater, that breakwater is rendered almost entirely useless at certain times of tides and wind.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend wrote me in regard to Saulnierville, and I referred him to the chief engineer. It is being looked into. I think it can be done out of the general vote.


Clarence Jameson: I would like an assurance from the minister that it will be attended to.


William Pugsley: I cannot say, until I get a report from the engineer, as to the necessity of it.


Clarence Jameson: I also drew the minister's attention to some slight work of a similar character required on the breakwater at Tiverton.


William Pugsley: I also referred that matted to the chief engineer, but I have not had the report brought to my notice, and cannot say to-night as to whether that work will be done. '


Clarence Jameson: The Minister of Marine and Fisheries told us tc-night that the fisheries should be preserved for the settlers and the Canadian consumers, which I think is a very good doctrine. These expenditures are very insignificant, yet very important from the standpoint of the people who require to use these works. Unless wharfs are made available the people suffer great hardship. I noticed in the main estimates passed some time ago that a very large sum, no less than $4,500, had been expended in Clark's harbour for the protection of private property, and a further sum of $800 was also appropriated this year for the same purpose, making a sum of $5,300 for the protection of private property in Clark's harbour. Now, if money can be expended for that purpose, there must be ample funds available for works of urgent necessity like those I have alluded to, and I hope the minister will see that they are attended to.


William Thoburn: What proportion of this $150,000 will be expended in the province of Quebec and how much in Ontario?


William Pugsley: I am inclined to think, from the demands on the department, that the sum will be divided pretty nearly equally between the two provinces.


William Thoburn: At what points in Ontario?


William Pugsley: The same points which I mentioned when we were discussing the main estimates.


Mr. CROSBY.: I would ask the minister why the appropriations he is now asking for in the supplementary estimates w'ere not put in the main estimates when they were brought down in the first place? I understand these supplementaries are for the purpose of carrying out work that was commenced last year and not finished.


William Pugsley: In the main estimates we simply put what we thought would be sufficient to keep the government dredges working, and we did not think we would require any additional amount for dredging. But very strong representations have been made to us from the maritime provinces for dredging which is said to be most urgently required at certain points, and we have put in $150,000 for the maritime provinces, and a similar amount for Quebec and Ontario, to meet cases of most urgent necessity in the interest of navigation.	.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is it the intention to remove the dredge that has been at work in the village of Souris before it completes the work that is necessary to be done there? The reason I ask is that within the last few years there has been $74,000 spent on the wharf there; and I am informed and believe that if this dredge is now removed before

she completes the work at the village of Souris this wharf will be practically useless.


William Pugsley: The information in my department was that about three weeks' additional work would be sufficient to make the wharf available for public use, and I authorized her remaining there for that period. There is more work to be done at Souris, but I am informed that it can wait. There is work urgently required at Summer-side and at other places A great deal of work has been done at Souris, the dredge has been there for two seasons steadily at work, and I did not feel that we could keep her there any longer, to the neglect of other places where she was more urgently required.	.


Austin Levi Fraser: During the last campaign the gentleman who represented that county informed the electors that this dredge was built especially for use in King's county, and he said there was plenty of work to be done in King's county that would keep the dredge going for two years. Now it seems the dredge is to be removed before the work is completed.


William Thoburn: Is it the intention of the minister to do some dredging at Newcastle harbour in Ontario? I think one day's work, or two at most, would be sufficient to make a channel in that harbour. When the crew is together and steam is got up, the dredge might well be allowed to go there. The harbour must have an entrance so that boats can call there. A bar is formed during the winter which could be easily dredged in one or two days.
Mr. PUGSLEY That dredge is not owned by the government.


Austin Levi Fraser: I again ask the minister if it is the intention to remove the dredge before she has completed her work in King's county. There is just as much necessary work there as in any other county in Prince Edward Island.


William Pugsley: It is quite true that the predecessor of the hon, gentleman was very energetic in getting public works for his constituency, and no doubt he did succeed in getting a great deal of work done there. But work is urgently required in other places, and I must now send the dredge to other places, having done all that I think is presently required at Souris.


Austin Levi Fraser: Is it because the late representative, whom the minister calls the energetic member from King's county, is not now a member that the dredge is taken away from King's County this year?


William Pugsley: Oh, no, not at all; it is because he got so much done that it is not necessary to continue the dredge there now.


Austin Levi Fraser: 


Austin Levi Fraser: Did I understand the minister to say that even if he had been a member of this parliament the dredge would have been removed?


William Pugsley: Why certainly, just the same.
To provide for Canada's portion of the expenses of Royal Commission to inquire into trade relations between Canada and the West Indies, $20,000.


Adam Brown Crosby: When is the commission here provided for supposed to commence operations?


William Stevens Fielding: The Commission is to be appointed by the imperial authorities. No date has been fixed but the sittings will probably take place in the autumn, They will probably begin in Canada and the commission will doubtless have to sit in the West Indies. I fancy the sittings will be in September or October, but it is difficult to make an announcement at present.


Adam Brown Crosby: Has the minister any information upon this subject in addition to what was brought by the last delegation who went out to the West Indies two years ago, Mr. Jones, and Mr. Parmelee, the Deputy Minister of Trade and Commerce? Apparently nothing has been done to follow that up, although it is a matter of very great importance. I am glad this commission is to be appointed and I hope that this commission will produce some tangible result. I have nothing to say against the former commissioners; Mr. Jones was particularly well fitted for the position to which he was appointed, and I think a very capable man, but still it seems that no action was taken upon their report.


William Stevens Fielding: It is not quite correct to say that nothing resulted from the visit to the West Indies by Mr. Parmelee and Mr. Jones. On the contrary, there was then the beginning of a movement which has made very considerable progress. For example as a result of the consideration given to the matter at that time, the colony of Barbados adopted a preferential tariff which they were willing to extend to Canada on certain terms. It was felt, however, that the acceptance of the proposal was open to some objection because it was not as complete as respects the colony of Barbados as we might desire, and there are difficulties in the way of dealing with one colony rather-without others. The object of this commission is to try to bring a number of colonies into co-operation so that if there is to be a treaty arrangement it will not be with one colony but with a group of colonies. I consider that the former commission has had good results and we are

now moving forward to a broader view of the same question.


Adam Brown Crosby: That may be so, but I cannot come to the conclusion to which the Finance Minister has come. When we went to the British West Indies we had already accorded preferential treatment to them and were not in a position to give anything more than we had already given. If the British West Indies do not grant us some opportunity of trading with them, I think it would be the duty of this parliament to see that they do not continue to enjoy the benefit they now receive from our British preference. We have done something for them, they have done nothing for us, and I think it is up to us to withdraw any advantage they are now receiving if they do not reciprocate. They feel that they have got from us all that they can get and they keep us in the same position in relation to trade as the United States, who are our great competitors there, and are taking our trade from us.


Clarence Jameson: Does the government of Canada appoint any of the commissioners?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the government of Canada will be represented on the commission. No names have yet been chosen although my name has been referred to in the public press. The Colonial Secretary, Lord Crewe, has kindly asked me to take a place on the commission. Whether or not I shall be able to do so will depend on other engagements. At any rate, the government of Canada will be represented on the commission.
Intercolonial Railway.
Extension to wharf at Dalhousie.. .. $27,500 To put line between Indiantown and Blackville into condition for operation	 50,000
Original construction to pay claim of Henry N. Paint for land taken at Point Tupper	 6,000


Clarence Jameson: We want an explanation of that.


George Perry Graham: There is no new work in any of these items. These are works that are under way and will probably be completed very soon.


Austin Levi Fraser: Does this include any railway work in Prince Edward Island?


George Perry Graham: There is nothing for Prince Edward Island in any of these items.


Adam Brown Crosby: Why have these items not been put in the regular estimates?


George Perry Graham: It is impossible in managing a large department to get all the details in time to include them in the main estimates, because they are made up before the
House meets, and as the work is further advanced now we make provision for it in the supplementary estimates*


Adam Brown Crosby: There is no reason why men should be kept at this late hour of the night passing supplementary estimates which should have been put in the regular estimates.


George Perry Graham: We have had supplementary estimates for a great many years.
Mr. CROSBY That does not make any difference. You should try and make things as easy as possible and not make them any harder.


Clarence Jameson: Would the minister give us an explanation of the item to provide for the payment of $6,000 to Henry N. Paint?


George Perry Graham: This is a claim that has been before the department for some time and which I have endeavoured to settle. The claim was for $25,000 or $30,000 and I made an offer to the parties of $6,000, about 25 per cent of the original claim, which they accepted after consideration.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


George Taylor: What business will the government take up to-morrow and is it the intention to rise at six to-morrow evening?


William Stevens Fielding: To-morrow is Friday.


George Taylor: I understood that on account of some doings at Government House we would not sit to-morrow evening.


William Stevens Fielding: Oh, I must reserve my answer to the latter part of my hon. friend's question. To-morrow we desire to take up a number of Bills on the Order Paper. I do not know that any of them has special precedence. We should like to feel free to take up any of the Bills which have been placed on the order paper and at a later period in the day the House will go into Committee of Supply. In that case the Prime Minister will take up the estimates with respect to the Department of Trade and Commerce and steamship subsidies. At this stage of the session we would like to feel free to take up any estimates yet remaining.


George Taylor: I understood from the Prime Minister or some other person that the government were all going to the state ball and that the House would not sit.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not authorized to say who will go or who will stay, but I think the House will meet.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.15 a.m. Friday.
*6559
[Stage Direction]


Friday, May 14, 1909.