1910-03-30

[Stage Direction]
Mouse of Commons debates

[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, March 30, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 189) to incorporate the Protectorate Life Insurance Company of Canada. -Mr. Turriff.
Bill (No. 190) to incorporate the Quebec and Ungava Railway Company.-Mr. Devlin.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 193) to amend the Meat and Canned Foods Act. He said': In the working of this law we find some slight modifications of the wording and form to be necessary. There is no change in the principle of the Act. When we come to discuss the details I will give full information concerning each.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.


Mr. BARNARD:: 1.	What are the particulars of the sum of $18,109,811, shown as having been expended in British Columbia for railway subsidies on page 2, of a return to an Order of the House of Commons, dated the 19th of February, 1908, and being sessional paper No. 219 of the session of 1908?


Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM.: The following are the amounts expended by the Dominion government on railway subsidies in British Columbia, up to 1905-6:
Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway, 73 miles, $750,000; Nakusp and Slocan railway, 36) miles, $117,760; Columbia and 189
Kootenay railway, 27) miles, $88,800; Shus-wap and Okanagan railway, 51 miles, $163,200; Kootenay and Arrowhead railway, 46J miles, $153,866; Canadian Pacific railway, (Revelstoke to Arrowhead) 25 miles, $80,000; Canadian Pacific railway, (Savonas to Port Moodie) 213 miles, $13,326,100; Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen railway, 35 miles, $110,592; Canadian Pacific railway, (Crowsnest) 182 miles, $2,301,936 ; Canadian Pacific railway, (Laggan to Savonas) 301 miles, $4,031,233; total $21,105,487.


SALES OF SCHOOL LANDS.
Mr. LAKE:: il. Have any sales of school lands been made by the government to private individuals or to companies in any other way than by publio auction?
2.	If so, under what circumstances and on what terms have such sales been made; and were the lands so sold advertised for sale before being disposed of?


Hon. FRANK OLIVER:: 1.	Yes, in accordance with the statutes in that behalf.
2.	School lands required for the right of way of railways, for station grounds, ballast pits, and right of way for water pipes, have been sold otherwise than by public auction to railway companies under the provisions of the Railway Act, and school lands have also been sold by private sale to Boards of Trustees, under the provisions of subsection 2, of section 39, of the Dominion Lands Act, for school sites, the area not exceeding in any case four acres. In no other ease have school lands been sold to private individuals, or to companies, otherwise than at public auction.
The lands required for right of way, station grounds, &c., of railways, are sold to the railway companies at a valuation determined by inspection of the land, and approved by the Governor in Council.
The lands required for school sites are only sold to Boards of Trustees, upon the recommendation ef the Deputy Minister of Education for the province in which the land is situated.



The minimum price fixed by the Act is $10 per acre, and no land has been sold for school sites below that price.
These sales are not advertised.


ISSUE OF SCRIP TO HALF-BREEDS.
Mr. LAKE:: 1.	Has any commission been employed on the issue of scrip to half-breeds since the 1st January, 1908?
2.	If so, in wbat part of the country have they been employed and to what extent have issues of scrip been made by them?
3.	Who composed the commission, and did any other persons accompany them, other than their employees? If so, who?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	In that portion of the Northwest Territories including Split lake, Oxford House, Nelson House, and other points covered by the adhesion to Indian Treaty No. 5.
No scrip was issued by the commissioner, but scrip aggregating 7,920 acres, in satisfaction of 33 claims, was issued by the Department of the Interior and delivered to the claimants personally by the commissioner.
3.	Reverend John Semmens, inspector of Indian agencies, and reserves, who was also appointed commissioner to take the adhesion to Treaty No. 5. It is not known whether or not any persons other than his employees accompanied him.


ST. MAURICE RIVER-DREDGING AND IMPROVEMENTS.
Mr. BLONDIN:: 1.	Does the government intend to construct this year or soon, an embankment or dam over the Grand Piles chute, on the St. Maurice river, county of Champlain?
2.	Does the government possess plans and specifications of such intended embankment? If so, since when?
3.	What are the different amounts expended annually during the last ten years on the River St. Maurice for dredging, maintenance and all other works, between the Grand Piles chute and La Tuque?


Hon. WM. PUGSLEY:: 1.	No decision yet arrived at.
2.	No plan or specification has ever been agreed upon.
3.		Maintenance
		and all
Year.	Dredging.	other works.1899-1900	.. $ 2,830 00	$ 13,488 451900-1901	.. 9,598 29	20,047 581901-1902	.. 6,394 83	29,493 371902-1903	.. Nil.	15,832 211903-1904	.. 7,751 53	13,371 261904-1905	.. 7,953 02	20,359 921905-1906	.. 11,240 71	17,115 851906-1907	.. 9,198 08	39,866 671907-1908	.. 16,146 59	50,464 011908-1909	.. 15,888 17	41,982 77Totals.. ..	.. $87,001 22	$262,022 09


Mr. OLIVER.: 


TURTLE MOUNTAIN TIMBER RESERVE.
Mr. SCHAFFNER:: I
1.	Has there been any tree planting in the Turtle Mountain timber reserve during the years 1908 and 1909?
2.	If so, how many men were employed in said tree planting during the years 1908 and 1909?
3.	What was the amount of money paid to each person so employed during the years 1909-1910, and what are their names?
4.	Is there an. assistant timber inspector in Turtle Mountain timber reserve? If so, what is his name and salary?
5.	What percentage of the trees planted was living at the end of the growing season of 1909 ?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	No tree planting was done on the Turtle Mountain Forest reserve during the years 1908 and 1909, but a small nursery of coniferous trees was started on this reserve in 1909 to provide trees for planting.
2.	None.
3.	None.
4.	There is no permanent assistant timber inspector. Temporary help is obtained as required.
5.	Answered by No. 1.



ASSENT TO WATERWAYS TREATY.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: I beg to lay on the table of the House papers and correspondence regarding the purchase of the steamer ' Rainbow '; also papers and correspondence regarding the intended purchase of the steamship ' Niobe '. I have also to inform the House that the government of Canada has assented to the exchange of ratifications in the Waterways Treaty. There is some additional correspondence with regard to the same, which will be put upon the table of the House either to-morrow or early on Monday.



TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

Mr. SPROULE.: In the absence of the Finance Minister-I notice a statement circulated in the press that an announcement would be made to-day in regard to the negotiations with the President of the United States concerning tariff matters. Is the First Minister prepared to take the House into his confidence, and give us a statement, so far as he can; and if there is any correspondence or data connected with that matter, will he lay them on the table of the House?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to inform my hon. friend that the Minister of Finance will himself be in the House within probably an hour, and when he comes, we will take up an item so as to give him

an opportunity of making his intended statement.



PRIVILEGE-LONG SAULT DAM.

Mr. J. D. REID.: I rise to a question of privilege. I see in the Toronto ' Globe ' of March 26 the following item:
The Montreal ' Star' can easily ascertain that the Long Sault dam scheme is not a party measure. Conservatives like Dr. Reid favour it, and the Conservative Brockvillo ' Times1 is exceedingly severe on everybody who opposes it.
I am not now, never was, and never will be, in favour of any scheme that would place a dam across the St..Lawrence river at Long Sault Rapids, or any place on the St. Lawrence.



MIXING OF GRAIN.

Frederick Laurence Schaffner: 
Wilfrid Laurier: The only thing I can say at present is that I understand the Minister of Trade and Commerce is investigating the matter to which my hon. friend has referred.



INDIAN ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 141) to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Oliver.
On section 2-contracts affecting Indian moneys and securities to he approved by superintendent general.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is practically the old law, is it not?


Frank Oliver: 
Frank Oliver: We wish to insert the following words in the section as it now stands:
And no annuities or interest on funds, and no moneys appropriated by parliament held for any band of Indians.
The section as it now stands reads as follows:
No presents given to Indians or non-treaty Indians, and no property purchased or acquired with or by means of any annuities granted to Indians, or any part thereof, and in the possession of any hand of such Indians, or of any Indian or any band, or irregular hand, shall be liable to be taken, seized or distrained for any debt, matter or cause whatsoever.
This protects the Indians in property purchased with the annuity money, but it does not protect the annuity money itself. We desire to put the annuity money itself in the same position as the statute now places the property that is purchased by it.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed. ,



BOUNTIES ON ZINC.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 182) respecting the payment of bounties on lead contained in lead-bearing
[Stage Direction]
ores mined in Canada, and to promote the production in Canada of zinc-Mr. Temple-man-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Explain.


Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: When the resolution was before the House a few days ago there was a very full explanation given of the purport of this Bill. At that time I was asked by the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) to state somewhat more in detail how it was proposed to expend the sum of $50,000, and I promised to give that information. The money which is being set apart for the promotion of the zinc industry will be expended approximately as follows:
1st. Investigation of processes which promise commercial results:
(a)	The De Laval Process, in operation at Trollhatten, Sweden.. .. 3,000 00
(b)	The Ferguson-De Laval Process,
demonstration plant being . erected in London, Eng	 2,500 ffl
(c)	The Cote-Pierron Process, recently invented in Prance	 3,000	00
(d)	The Kermode Bisulphate Process,
demonstration plant being erected in Wales	 3,000	00
(e)	The Hiram Nixon Process, of
Philadelphia	
2,500	00There are two more processes, of which information is being obtained, one in Russia and one in Vienna, Austria, which are stated to be commercial, each $3,000	
6,000	00

It is intended that these processes be examined on a commercial scale, in detail, by competent metallurgists.
The investigation of each one of these processes will require several weeks. In explanation of the cost of these investigations it may be stated that it includes the salary of the chief metallurgist and his assistants and their travelling expenses, and the writing of the report, also the payment of the needed labourers, of sufficient number to enable the staff to be divided into night and day shifts, as the processes are continuous.
It is only after this necessary information has been gathered, that it will be possible to frame a plan for further procedure.
If any of these processes promise commercial results, the remainder ($29,000) of the grant may be employed in setting up and operating an experimental plant on the lines of the approved process. As the sum, $29,000, is very small for so important an inquiry, it will be necessary to avail ourselves of the electric outfit already in existence at Nelson, B.C.
That is the statement prepared by the Director of Mines as to the method of expending this money. The purport of the Bill, what we expect to accomplish, the Mr. OLIVER.
necessity of the work >and all that kind of thing were very fully discussed when the resolution was before the House, and I think the House is fully impressed with the importance of the proposed work.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: Is it the intention of the minister to have the present commercial processes also investigated, such as the process now in operation in New Jersey and the Belgian process? These have been commercially employed for a great many years, and I think that before starting in to exploit new processes for the smelting of zinc, it would be well also to investigate the old processes which have been successful. Does the minister not also think it important to investigate those processes that have been in successful operation for some time?


William Templeman: Undoubtedly that investigation will be made. The chief authority on this continent on zinc is Mr. Ingalls, of New York city.	.


John Allister Currie: And Joseph Wharton also.


William Templeman: Yes. We propose enlisting the co-operation of these gentlemen at the very earliest possible date. As I am advised, the process for the reduction of zinc known as the Belgian process is not believed by metallurgists to be economically adaptable to the ores _ of this country, in which lead and zinc are in close association. The difficulty to be surmounted is to find a process that will recover these two metals. I believe that where zinc ores are smelted in the United States and Europe, lead is not present, or if it is present, it can be separated. The great problem is to save all the metals that are present in the British Columbia ores, and to solve that problem it is necessary: to obtain a process that will save at once the lead as well as the zinc. It is believed by experts who have been investigating the processes that are referred to in this memorandum that tiiat result can be accomplished by investigation and further experimentation in regard to the smelting of these ores. But our investigation would not be complete unless we fully studied and applied, if necessary, the well known processes of smelting now in use in many parts of the world.


John Allister Currie: The reason I mention this is that several so-called German chemists have exploited processes in this country at great expense to the people. A number of people in Hamilton put something like $300,000 or $400,000 into a process which proved a failure. I understand that one or two similar processes were exploited in the west at the expense of the public there, and from what I have learned from people who are actually in the business

of smelting zinc there is no mystery about it, the process is simple, cheap and efficient and there is no necessity of indulging in any wild-cat experiments. Therefore, I hope that the minister will investigate the practical workings of the old processes that are in use to-day instead of taking up some innovation which has not been put to the practical test.


Mr. HUGHES.: Why is it necessary to confine it to zinc alone? Have there not been great improvements made in the reduction of other ores in recent years, and are there not a great many ores more refractory than zinc? There are many gold ores that are refractory and are not easily reduced. Ores that a couple of years ago were positively irreducible are to-day being conveniently reduced, and cannot the same progress be made as to the development of the cyanide or some other processes? Why limit it to zinc?


William Templeman: There is no question as to the importance of the work to be done by private enterprise and possibly also by this government in developing more perfect methods of smelting all kinds of ores. There is a great deal yet to learn. As my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Currie) says, some important experiments have been carried on by private enterprise at an enormous expenditure and sometimes without any practical results as far as the determination of economical and satisfactory processes is concerned. It will be remembered that some years ago we laid aside $2,500,000 to encourage the mining and smelting of lead ores, and there is still in the treasury unexpended of that money a little over $1,000,000. Zinc and lead are very closely associated in the ore. They are chemically combined in some cases, but always very closely associated. A mine might start out to be a lead mine and turn into a zinc mine when they get to a certain depth. While we have endeavoured to encourage the production of lead, the presence of zinc in lead ores has been found to be a detriment, because in the process of smelting the zinc is lost to the extent of 8, 10 or 12 per cent. The process of smelting zinc is different from that of smelting lead, copper, silver or gold ore, the zinc being volatile and going out in vapour. It cannot be recovered afterwards. There is no zinc smelter in Canada. There are a number in the United States and a number in Europe. Where zinc ores are smelted lead is not usually present in the ore at all, but where lead and zinc are combined, according to the process in existence to-day, the zinc is penalized because of its presence. Lead is present in such enormous quantities in the ores in British Columbia that those interested in the industry are quite willing that the sum of $50,000 which
we propose to expend should be taken out of the lead bounty fund and set apart for the encouragement of smelting zinc ores. This is not a new charge on the revenue, but it is the taking of money out of the lead bounty fund and setting it apart for investigations of the processes of smelting zinc.


Samuel Hughes: Who is going to carry this work on?


William Templeman: The Department of Mines, under the direction of Dr. Haanel.


Samuel Hughes: Why is there not a school of technology or a metallurgical institution established here at Ottawa where experiments of this character could be carried on? A person who has an idea that he has discovered a feasible process for reducing ores should be allowed to make experiments at such an institution without being called upon personally to bear the cost. Why should we not have an institution at Ottawa for encouraging the development of these processes?


William Templeman: I am hopeful that before long we will have an experimental tation of that kind in Ottawa.


Samuel Hughes: A big one?


William Templeman: Well, just as large as parliament is willing to justify. I hope in a few weeks we will be able to invite the members of parliament to visit that plant, and show them what can be done in producing a cheap fuel from peat.


Samuel Hughes: You won't want the St. Lawrence power then?


William Templeman: We hope in combination with that plant in the same building to have a small plant for the purpose of carrying on metallurgical experiments just as my hon. friend has suggested. I am in full sympathy with his idea, and it is the intention of the department to accomplish results in that way. I hope that before another year we will have a small laboratory, probably on a small commercial scale to carry out these ideas.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. gentleman promised that he would give us the result of the bounty payments, and to what extent advantage was taken of the lead bounty Act.


William Templeman: The result of the payment of the bounty for lead has been extremely satisfactory to the mining industry, and has not been a very heavy charge upon the country. The first lead bounty Act giving $2,500,000 for the development of the zinc industry was passed about seven years ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It was passed in 1908.


William Templeman: The Act of 1908 simply continued the payment of the bounty but did not vote any new sum of money. During the first five years of the lead bounty Act, there was only $700,000 or $800,000 paid out of the bounty fund, and when the Act of 1908 was passed there was about $1,750,000 at the disposal of the mining industry for bounties. Since that time we have continued paying bounties, but there still remains over $1,000,000 in the fund unexpended. The total amount expended during the last seven years for this purpose is approximately $1,500,000. I do not remember the exact figures, but I think at the present time the production .of lead in Canada is about 22,000 tons.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought the minister would give us some comparative statistics which would enable us to see whether the bounty has stimulated the production of lead.


William Templeman: There is no production of metallic zinc in Canada. Zinc ores have been exported from Canada to the United States for some years, and this exportation has been profitable to our mining men; but owing to the high tax imposed on zinc ores by the Payne-Aldrich tariff, this exportation has been practically suspended except perhaps in the case of the highest grade ores. There has never been a zinc smelter in operation as a commercial industry in Canada. One was built at Frank in the Crowsnest pass, but I believe was not operated further at all events to demonstrate that it was not a success.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In order to determine whether or not the bounty has expanded the business, we ought to know what the total product was before the bounty was paid and what it has been since. Subsection 2 of section 2 of the Act provides that if the output amounts to 33,333 tons in any one year, the bounty will be reduced, I presume that it has not yet reached the point which would justify any reduction in the bounty.


William Templeman: While we voted $2,500,000 for lead bounties, the amount that could be expended in any one year was limited to $500,000, the amount of the bounty being $15 a ton. If the production *exceeded 33,333 tons per annum, necessarily the amount paid per ton would have to be reduced; that is the meaning of the clause to which my hon. friend has referred. The bounty is paid on a sliding scale, based on the price of lead in the London market. As the price goes up, the amount of the bounty paid is relatively re-


William Templeman: 
Thomas Simpson Sproule: My aim in asking the question I have has been to ascertain to what extent this bounty was stimulating the production of lead. If we found an increasing amount paid in each succeeding year, we would naturally conclude that the bounty was doing a great deal of good, and we would be in a position to decide whether or not it would be wise to set apart money to stimulate the production of another metallic product.


William Templeman: The fact that a gradually increasing amount was paid each year would be of no evidence that the amount of lead production wasi increasing, for the reason that we have to take into account the price of lead in the London market. But, speaking generally, I have not the slightest doubt that the lead bounty has been a great incentive to the leadmining industry, particularly in British Columbia. I believe that any one who knows the conditions in the Kootenay country is well aware that but for this bounty the industry would have gone down. It has been due to the assurance that with the aid of the bounty a profitable price could be obtained for lead, that the leadrefining industry has continued to successfully operate during the last seven years. The granting of the lead bounty by this government has been 'fully justified.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I do not say that it has not been justified; but I do not agree with the contention of the minister that the amount of bounty paid out from year to year is no evidence of the quantity of lead produced. To. my mind there is an absence of that data which the House requires in order to determine whether we are wise or not in endeavouring to stimulate the production of lead in that way. This information we ought to have before we get through. If we found there were 25,000 tons produced this vear, 23,000 tons the year before, and 17,000 the previous year and a proportionate amount of bounty paid out each year, that would be an evidence that the industry was being stimulated, but if it were found that there, was no increase of production from year to year, whether we paid much or little, that would be an evidence that the production was not stimulated by the bounty. It is the fullest information which we ought to have in order to understand whether this is doing good or not.


William Templeman: I shall bring down *11 that information on the third reading.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: From the time we began to pay the bounty.
Bill reported.



SALE OF BABY FARM.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 181) to authorize the sale or [DOT]other disposal of certain public lands, and the acquisiton of certain other lands, in or in the vicinity of the cities of Toronto and Winnipeg, respectively.-Sir Frederick Borden-read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. MACDONELL.: Will the hon. minister explain the reason for this section, and tell us the story of this land transaction?


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: This Bill is founded on a resolution which passed the 21st of March last, and was very fully dis-f cussed at the time. I may repeat shortly now the reasons. The Baby farm was found rather small for our requirements. It was also ascertained that the land could be sold at a very large profit, and that the amount realized could be used to purchase more than three times as much land in the vicinity of Toronto at a point even more -convenient.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: What is the acreage?


Frederick William Borden: About 160 acres, and it can be sold for $1,000 or more per acre. A precisely similar course was (pursued a couple of years ago in the sale of land in Toronto and Montreal, and I think it is entirely in the public interest, as well as in the interest of the militia, that this farm should be. sold and other land acquired.


Angus Claude Macdonell: According to the ihon. minister then the Baby farm has been abandoned and is to be sold. How Vvill ithat affect the construction of the barracks?


Frederick William Borden: That will in no way delay the construction of the barracks.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Would the hon. minister have any objection to stating where the government have decided to locate the barracks-what property they have selected?


Frederick William Borden: I think it would be undesirable at present to state *even the locality except to say that it will be quite as convenient to tire city of Toronto as the Baby farm. It is probable th.at we may have to resort to expropriation, but that may not be the case, and in
any event I think it undesirable that I should state now the exact locality. But I may say that the site has been selected byr Colonel Otter and other officers who know exactly where they wish to locate. .


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. minister state what direction it is from the city?


Frederick William Borden: I would rather not say.	-


John Allister Currie: The government has made a speculation apparently out of the Baby farm. The city of Toronto wished to get the use of the Stanley barracks, and so agreed to purchase another property for the government, for which they paid $20,000.' The government has been using the StanJ ley barracks all this time and have made, a profit of over $100,000 on the whole transaction. I think that the $20,000 should be paid back to the city of Toronto, and the Stanley barracks be given to that city as a gift


Frederick William Borden: I think the city got a very good bargain when it accepted the Stanley barracks, because it got them at really below the actual value.


Angus Claude Macdonell: I think the party aggrieved, if any one is, is the militia corps. The government bought the Bab,y farm some five years ago. At that time the barracks could not afford sufficient accommodation and it was expected that a new barracks would be built on the Baby farm. As far back as two years ago, considerable sums were put in the estimates for that purpose, but so far the government have done nothing except hold this land,, which has greatly appreciated in value. I' understand that they are making $100,000 but of the transaction. The militia are no further advanced than they were five years' ago, and the government are about to embark in a new property transaction, which they may hold for speculation another five years. What assurance will the minister give, if any, with regard to acquiring this site and immediately commencing the construction of the barracks which are so badly needed for the accommodation of the militia in the Toronto district?


Wilfrid Laurier: As the discussion may last some time, I move that the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



WAYS AND MEANS-TARIFF NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE UNITED STATES.

['The motion of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox).']
Hon.  W. S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Ways and Means. He said:

I desire to avail myself of this, the very earliest, opportunity of presenting to the House a statement concerning the negotiations which have recently occurred with respect to the question of commercial relations between the United States and Canada. One need hardly say anything as to the great importance of the subject. Living, as we do, close beside the great republic, and in close connection with it in many ways, it must at all times be of the utmost importance that we should maintain, as far as possible, friendly relations with that great country. Notwithstanding a tariff situation which we in Canada regard as somewhat unfavourable, the volume of our present trade is a very large one. Fifty per cent of the total trade of Canada is with the United States; fifty-nine per cent of our imports come from the United States, and thirty-five per cent of our exports are sent to the United States. And this occurs under tariff conditions which we in Canada, at all events, have regarded as not as favourable as we should wish them to be. The importance of the question was recognized at an early stage of the session by an hon. member opposite, who suggested that, before we should proceed with the final approval or our second or supplementary French treaty, we should ascertain whether the government of the United States would regard that treaty as one discriminating against the trade of the republic. While we realized the great importance of the matter, we did not think it would be wise to take that course. We had had negotiations from time to time with our American friends in relation to better trade conditions, and they had not turned out very successfully. We had, after repeated efforts, taken the ground that we should not again approach the United States with proposals for betterment of our trade relations, and that, if the matter was to be reopened again, it should be reopened, not upon the initiative of Canada, but upon the initiative of the United States. Accordingly, we declined to make any approach to the United States while the question of the French treaty was pending. That treaty was approved in due course, I am glad to say, not only by this side of the House, but little less than unanimously by parliament. We were bound to maintain the right of Canada, through the proper and accredited channels, to enter into trade treaties with any other country with which we might find it convenient to do business, and we felt that, to approach the United States in the manner suggested, would be to recognize their right to restrict our liberty in that respect.
Now, happily, Sir, the condition is changed. We declined to go to the United States on the subject, but the United States has taken the responsibility of taking the initiative. Ottawa no'longer takes the init-Mr. FIELDING.
iative, but Washington takes the first step of asking that we open negotiations for better trade relations.


Samuel Hughes: Did not the editor of the ' Globe ' go down there with his hat in his hand?


Mr. FIELDING.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes) is a regular and attentive reader of the * Globe ', I am surprised that he does not profit more from it. The United States tariff, I have said, is one which we have not regarded as favourable to Canadian trade. For years we had what was commonly known as the Dingley tariff, the new tariff law is known as the Payne-Aldrich tariff. In some respects, the new tariff is less favourable than the old one to Canadian interests; I think there are one or two cases of that kind. In other respects, the new tariff is more favourable to our trade than the Dingley tariff was. Taking it all in all, it is calculated that the Payne-Aldrich tariff is better for Canada. As respects last year's imports-taking these as an illustration-if we take the new tariff and apply it to the exports from Canada to the United States last year, it is claimed, the changes under the Payne-Aldrich tariff would be equivalent to $1,000,000 in our favour. That is to say, those who pay the duty-and I am not now entering into that aspect of the question -on these Canadian goods will pay about $1,000,000 less under the Payne-Aldrich tariff than would have been paid under the Dingley tariff. It is well to note, therefore, that to that extent there has been somewhat of an improvement. Nevertheless; the American tariff of to-day is quite a high tariff. And if upon that high tariff there should be placed in addition the maximum tariff of the United States, as proposed by a clause of the Payne-Aldrich Bill, undoubtedly the tariff burden would be so great upon Canadian industry as to practically become prohibitive. If that maximum tariff had to be applied, it would, I suppose, almost inevitably follow that Canada would be obliged to adopt retaliatory measures. There will be those who say that that does not necessarily follow; those who say that retaliation is not the most effective method of, dealing with foreign nations. I do not* subscribe to that doctrine. I think that experience, even the experience of Canada, shows that retaliatory measures sometimes becomes necessary in self-defence. I think that if the maximum tariff of the United States had to be applied to . Canada, it is more than probable that public opinion in Canada would have demanded retaliation from this side in the form of the present surtax, or, perhaps, a larger surtax, and perhaps, in other respects as well. This, undoubtedly would

have brought about a most deplorable tariff war. Now, in that tariff war, my own judgment is, the United States would have suffered more than Canada, but both parties would have suffered, and suffered in an enormous degree. There is no doubt that large interests in Canada would have been affected immediately. There are some important interests in Canada which are so closely associated with the United States markets that to have those markets suddenly closed against them would be held as a great misfortune. Nevertheless, even the men in these lines of industry, who realize that they, perhaps, would be the first to suffer, were as, a rule, disposed to take the ground that we ought not to make concessions to the United States of the large character they were said to be demanding, and that we should stand firm and insist upon the right of Canada to pursue her own commercial policy. These men were willing to bear the burden if necessary. Every one of these men with whom I had the pleasure of discussing this question personally said: This will be a great disaster; if it be possible by any moderate concession to avert such a disaster, it is the duty of the government and parliament of Canada to adopt that course. That is the spirit in which, then, we have approached the question.
So long as the United States government acted in what may possibly be called an unfriendly spirit-speaking in a commercial sense-so long as they placed their high tariff upon Canadian products and refused all overtures from Canada, the public opinion of Canada was most pronounced that we were bound to resent such a policy, to maintain our honour, our independence. But the moment the United States indicated their willingness to open negotiations, the .moment they expressed the desire to come to Canada and discuss the question with us, that moment the government felt-and I am sure parliament will feel-that it was our duty to meet them in the spirt in which they have come to us. Several weeks ago the Secretary of State for the United States, Mr. Knox, informed the British Ambassador at Washington that it was the desire of the United States to open up negotiations with Canada in respect to these important questions, and he desired to know the manner in which these negotiations could be best conducted. The British Ambassador, Mr. Bryce, informed him very properly that the best way to deal with a matter of that kind was to open up direct negotiations with the Canadian government.
Mr; J. A. CURRIE. Will this correspondence be laid on the table?


William Stevens Fielding: I can say to my hon. friend that there is very little correspondence in this matter beyond what I shall submit before the close of my remarks. There have been some few letters, between the ambassador of the British government, the American government and ourselves, which may have to be regarded as of a confidential character. However, I am giving to my hon. friend the substance of it, and there is nothing in it that is not contained in what I have already communicated to the House. It may be necessary, later on, to bring it down; I offer no opinion as to that. The negotiations have been conducted largely without correspondence, and there is very little to be added in the way of correspondence to what I shall submit to the House. But if it be found that there is something beyond, I shall be happy to bring it down.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there not some memoranda made of the negotiations as they went on, so as to keep a record of them?


William Stevens Fielding: It is important to keep a record of the conclusions, but in negotiations between governments in matters of that sort, it is not always necessary to keep records or memoranda of things that occur from day to day. It is important to make records of any conclusions that are reached, and the statement that I shall make will contain all the information that can be desired. But in saying that, if it be found that there is any correspondence having any proper bearing on this question we shall have no objection to bring it down, unless it is found to be of a confidential character.


John Allister Currie: The minister referred to certain correspondence as passing between the British ambassador and the Secretary of State, in which certain matters regarding the tariff are referred to, and I asked the question whether that correspondence will be laid on the table?


William Stevens Fielding: The question is a fair one. The ambassador at Washington and the Secretary of State exchanged brief notes; they were for the moment confidential, but I do not know that any objection could be had to bringing them down. But in all matters of that kind it is necessary that there should be confidential communications, as my hon. friend knows. If these communications are of that confidential character, we could not produce them to the House. I can assure my hon. friend, however, that the statement I shall make will contain the substance of the whole negotiations. As I was saying, the Canadian government were informed that it was the intention of the United States to


William Stevens Fielding: At first glance it might seem that that clause had been put in to recognize the preferential arrangements which Canada had made within the British empire. But upon more careful examination it will be observed that special mention is made to the granting of a preference by a colony or dependency to the mother country only. The effect of that clause, if it had remained in the Act, would have been that the United States would have recognized our right to grant a preference to Great Britain, but would not have recognized our right to grant a similar preference to any other portion of the British empire. As we had granted preferences to New Zealand, to 'South Africa, to British India and to the West Indies, if that clause had remained in the Payne Bill, that would have been held to be discriminating against the United States, because we grant preferences to these colonies which are not granted to the United States. Fortunately, however, that clause was not adopted by the Senate; the penalizing clause, as I have described it, was rewritten in the Senate, and no reference was made in it to any such preference. I mention this matter because it seems to have an important bearing upon certain negotiations which are in progress between Canada and the West Indies. My hon. friends will recollect that a Royal Commission has been inquiring into the trade relations between Canada and the West Indies. The Minister) of Customs and myself were appointed members of that commission. My hon. friend the Minister of Customs was fortunately able to go to the West Indies and participate in the deliberations. When they visited the Island of Jamaica they found it strongly inclined to trade with Canada, but the representative men of the commercial bodies appearing before the Royal Commission expressed the fear that if they granted any preferential treatment to Canada, if they entered into a preferential arrangement of that kind, it would be regarded in the United States as a discrimination, and would bring about retaliatory measures on the part of the United States. As the trade of Jamaica with the United States was very considerable, our friends in Jamaica were unwilling to run any risk on that score. They expressed a desire that Canada in some way would be able to arrange that no discrimination should be held to exist and no retaliation adopted. Of course, it is not in our power to make any arrangement of that kind on behalf of the United States. But it is worthy of note that in the negotiations which have recently taken place between the United States and Canada touching undue discrimination, the United States have not at all raised the question as to the British preference.

Neither as to our right to give a preference to Great Britain, nor a3 to our right to give a preference to any portionsi of the British empire has any question whatever been raised by the government of the United States. They recognize that this is a matter of family arrangement within the British empire and that no fault could be found with it. I mention this for the information of my friends in Jamaica, who I hope will see in it an indication that the United States would not regard the making of a trade arrangement between Jamaica and Canada as being of an unfriendly character or involving undue discrimination.
I said that when in the Senate the penalizing clause was rewritten, no reference was made to preferential arrangements between the mother country and her colonies, but provision was made that in case any country should establish what is called undue discrimination against the United States there should be an additional duty imposed of 25 per cent. It was provided that this so-called maximum tariff would come into operation on the first day of April of the present year. I would like the House to note particularly, for I find there is much confusion on the subject, that this maximum tariff means 25 per cent of the value of the article and not 25 per cent of the duty levied. I have found widespread error in that respect; I have found that many prominent mercantile men, who have not given the question careful attention, have been labouring under the mistake of supposing that the maximum tariff only meant the addition of 25 per cent to the duties already levied. For example, if the duty of $100 worth of goods was $30, or 30 per cent, the idea was that the maximum tariff would add one-quarter of the duty, or $7.50, that that would just make it, instead of 30 per cent, 37i per cent, and that while that would be rather a high duty it would not necessarily be a prohibitive duty. But if one reads moTe carefully the maximum clause of the United States tariff law, he will find that it is not 25 per cent of the duty, but 25 per cent of the value of the article. Taking the article I have mentioned by way of illustration-an article of the value of $100 at 30 per cent-the additional duty would not be one-quarter of 30, or 374, but the duty would be 30 per cent, plus one-quarter of the value of the article, or $25; so that the duty would not be $37.50, but it would be $55, it being $30, the original duty plus one-quarter or 25 per cent of the value of the article. I have been surprised to find how widespread the impression is that the maximum tariff would only add a small amount to the duty of the main tariff. _ Then, another point we had to take into consideration was that this maximum tariff would be applied automatically. It was not something that the president would bring upon us by some act of his own. It was not as if the president had to do this thing, and he might be persuaded not to do it. The law provided that on the first of April the maximum tariff was to come into operation unless in the meantime the president had, by proclamation, granted exemption and brought the minimum tariff into operation. It is important to note that, because if the president simply remains silent, if the president shall do nothing and simply lets matters drift, that maximum tariff will come into operation the first of April. It vas necessary, therefore, to ascertain whether the president could be induced by reasonable arguments and, if necessary, even by reasonable concessions, to issue a proclamation which would extend to Canada the benefit of the so-called minimum tariff.
As to the general grounds of difference between the two countries, as I have already pointed out there is not much correspondence on the subject and we cannot bring down any documents showing formal demands made by the United States upon us, but although the press was not always accurate in its details, it is probably right that I should say that in a general way the United States press has given to the world a pretty fair idea of .the points of difference beween the government of Canada and the government of the United States. There was one question of importance which engaged our attention to a limited extent, but which did not ultimately become a matter of negotiation. It was a matter of friendly discussion, but our American friends thought there was nothing to be done and so they did not formulate any demand upon it. I refer to the pulp wood question. The United States would have been pleased if we could have made some friendly arrangements with the provincial governments whereby the restrictions now made or likely to be made as respects the shipments of pulp wood to the United States might be modified. It is well known that the provincial governments have no power to levy an export duty, or to prohibit the export of anything to a foreign country, for that can only be done by the parliament of Canada. But nevertheless, the provinces can to a large extent accomplish the same result. The provincial governments are the owners of large tracts of timber lands which they lease to those who may wish to operate them, and as owners of the lands it is their right to stipulate the terms and conditions upon which these leases shall be taken. In the province of Ontario, as is well known, a condition of the lease is that the wood shall be manufactured in Canada. In the province of Quebec there

is a distiiction made between the rate of stumpage levied on the wood manufactured in Canada and that which is not so manufactured. And it has been publicly announced that there is a probability that the Quebec government will proceed further and adopt practically the Ontario policy. The Americans were naturally interested in that. Many of the people of the republic have come into Canada or have sent their money into Canada, and are as large owners of these wood lands, and they would like very well if they could have the utmost freedom with regard to the shipment of this wood product. In the course of discussion this was mentioned to our government. We, of course, had only to point out that this is a matter of provincial concern; that we have no right and would not claim any right of interference with a a province in this matter, and so, after a little discussion, it was recognized that this was not a matter with which we could deal, and no demand was made on the part of the United States government that anybody should grant this relief which they very much desired.


William Findlay Maclean: Does that refer to the export duty imposed by the Dominion? Was any request made upon this government with regard to that?


William Stevens Fielding: They would have been exceedingly pleased if the government of Canada could have helped them in any way with regard to greater freedom in the shipment of this wood, but all I can say to my hon. friend is that we have made no arrangement of any kind in that matter. The right of the parliament of Canada to levy such export duty or to prohibit such export remains untouched.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the event of the parliament of Canada levying an export duty, or in the event of a regulation by a province compelling the pulp to be manufactured in the country, would that be regarded by the United States as a violation of their tariff law, sufficient to induce them to retaliate?


William Stevens Fielding: We have claimed that that could not in any sense be regarded as a tariff discrimination, and I think I may fairly say that they accepted our contention in that respect. It has ceased to be an issue between us. They are quite aware that all we could do would be in the line of what has been suggested by my hon. friend from South York (Mr. Maclean)- that we have the power to levy an export duty, and we could with the consent of the parliament of Canada bargain with them that we would not do so, but of course that is a large order. All I can say to my hon. friend is that the right of the parliament and the government of Canada to deal Mr. FIELDING.
with that question as it may best be dealt with in the public interest of Canada remains unchanged.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The provision in their tariff law dealing with pulp wood says:
Mechanically ground wood pulp, one-twelfth of one cent per pound dry weight: Provided, however, that mechanically ground wood pulp shall be admitted free of duty from any country, dependency, province, or other subdivision of government (being the product thereof) which does not 'forbid or restrict in any way the exportation of (whether by law, order, regulation, contractural relation, or otherwise, directly or indirectly) or impose any export duty, export license fee, or other export charge of any kind whatsoever, either directly or indirectly (whether in the form of additional charge or license fee or otherwise), upon printing paper, mechanically ground wood pulp, or wood for use in the manufacture of wood pulp.
If I am correct in my understanding of it, I take it that in the event of the provinces passing a regulation which would compel their pulp wood to be manufactured in the province, or in the event of an export duty being imposed upon that pulp wood, it would not be regarded as a violation of their tariff law.


William Stevens Fielding: I have been dealing entirely with the proposed application of their maximum tariff, and what my hon. friend (Mr. Sproule) says has no reference to that. There is a provision in their tariff law, in operation to-day, which levies a different duty upon pulp manufactured from wood produced in certain quarters, as compared with the duty levied on pulp from certain other quarters, but that is not under the maximum tariff. That is under another clause in the Tariff Act. It is in operation to-day, and we have not had that matter before us in any shape or form. It is not touched at all by our negotiations-.


John Allister Currie: Then the minister means that as the matter stands we have to take the maximum of the American tariff upon any pulp wood or pulp sent into the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: No, I think there is a little confusion there. There is a special regulation with regard to pulp, and a special tax upon pulp which comes from the Crow'n lands of the provinces which impose these restrictions, but that is separate, and apart from the maximum tariff; the maximum tariff is another thing.


John Allister Currie: And Canada has to pay that tax?


William Stevens Fielding: The question of who pays a particular tax is a large one.


John Allister Currie: I do not wish to enter into dialectics about it at all. Does not that tax now apply to the products of Quebec and Ontario?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes it does, but it has no relation whatever to the maximum tariff, and therefore it does not come within the scope of my observations. There is such a clause in operation now, and what I have to say does not in any way effect it. Now, the proposal was that the maximum tariff would be imposed upon all the products of Canada, and it is with that matter I am now dealing. The clause to which my hon. friend refers is in the tariff law; it is in operation to-day, and my observations do not touch it at all.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That clause is that the amount of the export duty levied shall be added to the duty in the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: That has reference to particular cases which have already arisen in some degree in Ontario, and in a limited degree in Quebec. I believe to-day there is a different tax being levied upon some pulp taken out from the province of Ontario* compared with what is levied in other cases. I do not think very much of it is paid, but I am informed there are cases in which that special tax has been paid. At all events, that is not under the maximum tariff clause; it is under a different division of the tariff, and I am not now dealing with it.
Then, I come to the larger question of what is commonly called the Franco-Can-adian treaty. In a general way the United States government have taken the ground that the Franco-Canadian. treaty is a discrimination; an undue discrimination against them. That is to say, that since we granted certain rates of duty to the products of France, and of certain other countries, which we did not grant to the United States, that amounts to discrimination, and it was assumed generally that in order to avoid the maximum tariff we should grant to the United States what we granted to France under the Franco-Canadian treaty, covering 110 tariff numbers of the Canadian tariff.
We were not disposed to admit that rule. We claimed that our treaty with France was a treaty of reciprocity; that is to say. that we granted to France certain concessions in return for which France granted us similar or equivalent concessions. We said to the United States: If you want these concessions that France received from us, you should be prepared to purchase them as France did by giving what we would regard as equivalent concessions. To that our friends in the United States naturally demurred. They claimed that if they gave us what is called the favoured-nation treatment-the best that was going
-that we should do the same with them. That, however, we thought was a view we ought not to take. We refused to take it in the beginning, and we refuse to take it now.
There is a misapprehension with respect to this Franco-Canadian treaty in one respect. I read recently a newspaper article which treated our difference with the United States as one which arose in consequence of our recent French treaty. That is a mistake. If the new French treaty had not been entered into at all, the same question would have arisen, because we had another French treaty, a treaty not so comprehensive as the later one, but which was in principle the same. We have had since the year 1894 a treaty with France, and whici* incidentally, in consequence of the favoured-nation conditions, we granted to other countries. We granted to France and these other countries concessions which we did not grant to the United States, so that in principle the question that we have with the United States to-day is the same question that would have presented itself even if our recent Franco-Canadian treaty had never been adopted, because we would have still had an outstanding French treaty in which there were rates granted to France which were not granted to the United States, and consequently there would have been the same ground for the contention


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: May I ask whether it was the treaty of 1894 or the treaty passed with France last year which in the opinion of the American representatives constituted a discrimination?


William Stevens Fielding: given to the United States without any compensation to us at all.
There is another aspect of the question. It was said, and there was a little force in it, that we not only gave these concessions to France in return for favours, but that we gave them, through the favoured-nation treaties of olden time, to a number of other countries without receiving any specific concession. Now, these other countries which enjoy the French treaty by virtue of the old favoured-nation treaties are for the most part unimportant. There are some of them with which we have a considerable trade, but most of them, certainly one-half of them, are countries with which we have little or no trade, and they cannot come into competition with the United _ States, But they have received these privileges, not by virtue of any treaty we have ourselves made with them, but by virtue of the favoured-nation clause which was found in old treaties made very many years ago by the British authorities at a time when the colonies had not attained to their present status. It is hardly necessary to remind the House that Great Britain no longer makes any commercial treaties concerning Canada without first obtaining the consent and concurrence of Canada; but these old treaties remaining in operation from many years ago do contain that clause, and as they have not been denounced, it became necessary we should grant to a number of these countries the same privileges as we granted to France.
We were able to point out to our friends of the United States that they probably could have stood in the same position as these other countries, and that if they were not in the same position, it was because they had never been willing to accept the British idea of what favoured-nation treaties meant; that they had always preferred to stand outside


John Allister Currie: What is the British idea?


William Stevens Fielding: The British idea does not insist on favour for favour. The British idea holds-and our American friends just now are disposed to use it up to a certain point-that if you give to France, for example, a certain concession and you get from France a return for it, if you have a favoured-nation treaty with another country you are bound to give these favours to the other country without demanding a return. The essence of it is that you must give these other countries the best terms that are going. The Americans have never accepted that rule. They have never come into the family of favoured nations in that respect, and they could not now complain if, because of their own action and policy in relation to that question, thev have not stood in as good a position as some other countries. However, beneath it all there Mr. FIELDING.
was the point that Canada w-as bound to insist on her right to make these treaties without stopping to consider whether or not they would be agreeable to another country, and we have endeavoured to insist on that right all through.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister pardon me if I ask him here if the United States government, as a result of these negotiations, has abandoned its contention that the reciprocal relations between Canada and another country are to be construed as bringing Canada within the clause which puts her under the higher tariff?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that the information which I will give to the House as to the concessions which we propose to make will answer my hon. friend's question. It will show that we are going to receive from the United States, the advantages of the minimum tariff, but that we do not propose to grant to the United States all that we have granted to France and other favoured-nation countries.


William Findlay Maclean: Then they have abandoned the claim they have made?


William Stevens Fielding: I think that when the President issues his proclamation this afternoon that will constitute an abandonment of the claim. At the same time, 1 do not wish to interpret the actions of our neighbours to the south. When we receive the advantages of the minimum tariff and they issue their proclamation accordingly, I consider that -that will constitute an abandonment of the claim that they are entitled to receive whatever favours we give to other countries. We certainly do not admit that claim, and have taken pains to put that fact on record. At the same time, I do not wish to interpret their attitude; but when they grant us the advantages of the minimum tariff, and receive from us in return, not all the concessions of the French treaty, but a small part of them, I consider that that constitutes an abandonment of any contention that they have a right to interfere with our liberty in treaty-making.
The next stage of this matter arose in connection with the visit of President Taft to Albany to take part in an interesting function to which the Governor General of Canada was also invited. Albany may be considered a half-way house between Washington and Ottawa, and it came to our knowledge that the President had expressed a desire to take up this matter personally, and would be pleased if arrangements could be made that he might himself discuss the matter with representatives of the Canadian government.


John Dowsley Reid: Who advised the government of his desire?


William Stevens Fielding: What bearing has that upon the matter? So long as the fact is correct, what matters it how we ascertained it?


John Dowsley Reid: Was it, or was it not from the editor of the Toronto 'Globe'?


William Stevens Fielding: Here is another case of a gentleman who is concerned about the Toronto 'Globe' who has never profited much from its instructions.


Samuel Hughes: If the hon. gentleman is referring to me, I wish to say that I made reference not to the 'Globe' at all, but to the gentleman who runs the 'Globe', and who also seems to run this government.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, he runs other people as well, it seems. I may say frankly that I believe the editor of the 'Globe' has done a useful public service. I am delighted to give him that credit in the presence of the House.


Samuel Hughes: Don't disown him.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not disown him. As I have stated, the president was going to Albany and an intimation reached us that he would be pleased to discuss the matter with representatives of this government. If my hon. friend wants to know from whom the intimation came, I can asure him that it came from Mr. Wm. H. Taft, the President of the United States.


John Dowsley Reid: Through the negotiations of Mr. Macdonald of the 'Globe'.


William Stevens Fielding: If it was so, we do not object. We are perfectly willing to receive good words from whatever source they come.


John Dowsley Reid: May I ask the Minister of Finance if he or the First Minister sent Mr. Macdonald down to Washington to make the negotiations?


William Stevens Fielding: Of what consequence is it?


John Dowsley Reid: Why did not the First Minister send a member of his government instead of the editor of the Toronto 'Globe'?


William Stevens Fielding: That is exactly what the First Minister did.


John Dowsley Reid: After Mr. Macdonald had gone to Washington and negotiated.


William Stevens Fielding: Many people went to Washington. It is a large and beautiful city, and many people besides Mr. Macdonald went there and had discussions with the United States government on this matter long before Mr. Macdonald did.


John Dowsley Reid: But the hon. gentleman does not deny that the First Minister, or the Finance Minister sent Mr. Macdonald to make negotiations.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not deny it because I do not know why the hon. gentleman should state it.


John Allister Currie: The reason is that it is not the first time that the editor of the ' Globe ' has gone as a quasi outside ambassador to negotiate a treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: I remember a time when the stately editor of the ' Globe the Hon. George Brown, went to Washington,-not as an outside ambassador, but as the duly authorized commissioner of this government, in 1874 for that purpose; and if the ' Globe ' of later years is willing to do good service for the country, let us by all means acknowledge it.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the Minister of Finance send Mr. Macdonald there to negotiate?


William Stevens Fielding: If the hon. gentleman states it


John Dowsley Reid: But you do not deny
it.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not think it important to deny half the things the hon. gentleman says.


John Allister Currie: Why was not the present editor of the ' Globe ' clothed with the same dignity as his predecessor?


William Stevens Fielding: Can my hon. friend tell me exactly all the powers that were extended to his predecessor?


John Allister Currie: I think I can. I have the book right here, if you want me to read them.


William Stevens Fielding: I hope not.


Samuel Hughes: The only point is that it was after all this government that first did the bowing, or the crawling, or the opening of the negotiations.


William Stevens Fielding: That statement has not a shadow of foundation. I hope that is sufficiently specific to reach the mind of my hon. friend.


Samuel Hughes: Not at all.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, it is the best I can do in that process. As I have stated,

the President of the United States sent a telegram requesting that the Minister of Finance might meet him at Albany to discuss the matter.


John Allister Currie: A telegram to whom?


William Stevens Fielding: To myself. I have not the telegram with me or I would read it And let me say that the President expressed the desire that the Prime Minister might also be present. The President said that he was desirous of avoiding any trouble with Canada; and I am satisfied that Mr. Taft, both from a sense of his responsibility in his high office, and from his friendly relations with the people of Canada, as manifested by many years of visiting our country, was earnestly anxious to avoid this trouble if he could. But it was represented to him that the terms of the maximum tariff clause gave him but a limited discretion. He did not feel that he was absolutely free to settle the matter in accordance with his own personal desire, and he felt that that clause had to be considered. Mr. Taft, is a great lawyer, and has been a judge, and it was thought by many people in close touch with him that he would feel obliged as a lawyer and an ex-judge to give the maximum tariff clause an interpretation irrespective of what his own personal desire might be. But he was not desirous of straining the clause to our disadvantage. On the contrary, I am sure he would prefer, if there were to be any straining, that it should rather be in order to come to a friendly settlement than otherwise. When it was claimed that in offering us exemption from the maximum tariff they were offering us great concessions, we felt obliged to dissent. We felt that if they wanted us to make some concessions to them, they ought to make concessions to us on their existing tariff. When they proposed, as a means of bridging over the difficulty, that we should give them the French treaty, we had to say ' no, if you are prepared to give us direct concessions below your existing tariff, we are prepared to discuss with you. The President pointed out that he had no power to do that, that Congress only could do that, and that Congress moved slowly in these matters; but he gave _us the most positive assurance of his desire to cultivate the most friendly commercial relations with Canada. He made a public speech at the University of Albany, in my hearing, along this line, and he gave a public interview to the editor of the ' Globe ', which I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will read, in which he' gave expression to the same view; and in all his conversations with me, he was most cordial in the assurance of his desire to Mr. FIELDING.
bring about closer commercial relations with Canada.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Who was responsible for the interpretation of this portion of the American law, that where a country discriminates against the United States ' there should he levied, collected and paid on all articles when imported from any foreign country into the United States or into any of its possessions (except the Philippine Islands, the Island of Guam and Intuila) the rates of duty prescribed by the schedule and paragraphs of section one of this Act, and in addition thereto 25 per cent ad valorem.' Who was it that gave' the interpretation as to what the 25 per cent ad valorem meant? If I understood the hon. minister correctly, it is 25 per cent on the value of the article and not on the duty.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend himself will interpret that clause the moment he reads it. I am afraid that a great many who have not read the clause^ itself, and have only received information in a general way, have laboured under the impression that it meant 25 per cent of the duty. My hon. friend will see himself, on reading the clause carefully, that it means distinctly 25 per cent ad valorem. No one was called on to give that interpretation. It is the interpretation evident to any one who read? the clause. There is no room for two interpretations. The president is clothed with the power to grant exemption to a country which does not discriminate against the United States. He claims that he has not an absolutely free hand, although he has some considerable measure of discretion. But it was believed by many that the president would be advised by his tariff board, his expert advisers, that the situation in Canada, under the French treaty, did amount to a discrimination, and that he might feel bound in consequence to impose the maximum tariff.


John Allister Currie: 


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says that President Taft was perhaps bluffing. I will come to that in a moment. We were anxious that, if we were to make some concessions to the United States, they should make us some concessions in return, and the president pointed out very fairly, as I had to admit, that that was not within his power. He could not~of himself grant any concessions below the rates of the minimum tariff. That could only be done by Congress, and we all know that Congress moves somewhat slowly, and it would not be possible, within the dates between these negotiations and the 1st of April, to obtain any remedial legislation in Congress.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Did the president give the minister to understand that he

would use his best efforts at the present Congress to have the duties reduced with regard to Canada?


William Stevens Fielding: Practically, yes. I was coining to that in a moment. Not by specifying a particular section, but he had given us the assurance-and that was the very point I was about to make-of his desire to bring about better trade relations with Canada, involving mutual -concessions on the part of both countries.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Could he give any below the maximum?


William Stevens Fielding: If he could give the minimum, that is below the maximum.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I want to know is this. In the event of our imposing certain restrictions upon the trade between us and the United States, either by means of an export -duty or otherwise, which would bring us under the maximum tariff or the special provision made in the -case of pulp, could he relieve us of that provision which would bring us under the maximum tariff?


William Stevens Fielding: The only thing the president himself can do, under the existing law, is issue a proclamation, and I believe it bias been issued at Washington this afternoon-that is the understanding-and if anything could occur which, in his judgment, would amount to discrimination by Canada against the United States, he undoubtedly would have the power to recall that proclamation and thus leave us in the maximum tariff. I feel sure, however, that the whole trend of the negotiations is such as to assure us of the cordial desire of the president to improve our trade relations whatever may happen.


John Allister Currie: I did not understand the hon. minister to say that the president would do his utmost at the present session of Congress to have a reduction made in the tariff.


William Stevens Fielding: I am not sure that it will be done at the present session of Congress. That is a fair matter of debate, but the president gave us abundant assurances of his desire to bring about better relations with Canada, involving mutual trade concessions. There was a time when our people used to say: what is the good of these assurances? We have had hopes before about reciprocity which have not been realized. That is true, but there is this important difference. On all previous occasions we were seeking .reciprocity, and the United States were either indifferent or hostile. The situation is changed to-day It is not Canada which is seeking recipro-190
city to-day, but the President of the United States comes to the government of Canada and publicly declares his anxiety to open up negotiations. That is all the difference in the world. Under present circumstances, with the President of the United States coming to us in that spirit, I attach the utmost importance to the assurances which he gave us. We separated at Albany with the understanding that the matter might have to be taken up at Washington at an early day. The president gave us the assurance of his willingness to accept a very moderate concession to meet the difficulty. They had asked for the French treaty; they knew we would not give them the French treaty. The question was whether we could give them something short of the French treaty with which they would be content. So, we separated at Albany and resumed the negotiations at Washington on Friday last, when I had the honour and advantage of having accompanying me and associated with me my good friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham). The whole matter was discussed in the same friendly -spirit. The desire of both sides was to avoid a tariff war. We could not give to the United States, * as I have said, the benefits of the French treaty. We were not prepared to take any steps which would waive our rights and contentions in that respect, and we were not wdlling to grant any special concessions to the United States. The question that arose was: could we, by making some reduction-not to the United States alone, but to the wide world -create a situation which would be accepted by the President of the United States as a sufficient justification for him to issue the proclamation giving to Canada the benefit of the minimum tariff? That was the problem before us, that was the line upon which we endeavoured to reach a settlement. Now, one of my friends opposite said that this was a bluff. That is possible. There are people in the United States who say that they do not think the president would, in the end, have imposed the maximum tariff upon Canada. That is held by some persons, and, for a time, it was held by a good many. I am bound to say that the best information I could obtain, from sources that were entitled to respect and confidence, led me to believe, for the reasons I have1 given, that the president, with all his friendly regard for Canada, might have his hand forced and might have to impose the maximum tariff upon us by refraining from issuing his proclamation.


John Dowsley Reid: Did the hon. minister have that information when the French treaty was being put through?


William Stevens Fielding: It would not have made any difference, anyhow. I cannot understand the application of the hon. member's question to the case before me.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. minister (Mr. Fielding) made a speech in which he said that it did not make any difference what view the United States took, the treaty had to go through.
Mr. FIELDING Certainly, that is the view I took. And, if I am not mistaken, the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid) helped to put it through.


John Dowsley Reid: I did. But the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is taking a different course now. He was asked if he would take the step which he has since taken, and he said he would not.


William Stevens Fielding: I dealt with that point early in my present remarks. I said that the suggestion had been offered that, before we approved of the French treaty, we should go to the United States, and practically get their consent to make the treaty.


Mr. NORTHRUP.: No, that was not the suggestion.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, the suggestion was: Before you put this treaty through, find out how the United States will regard it. If that was not the suggestion, what was it?	,


William Barton Northrup: As the minister has asked the question, no doubt he desires an answer. The whole point was, not that the minister should go to the United States to ascertain their feeling in the matter, but that he should take the trouble to quietly read a statute already passed, and then the law of the land in the United States, in order that he might learn whether, under that law as it stood, he was doing something that might compel us, later, to go on our knees, and ask forgiveness for what we were doing. The hon. minister repudiated anything of the kind that he has done since.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member (Mr. Northrup) is not so ingenious as he thinks he is. If he consults the record, he will find that the suggestion was offered that we should not proceed to ratify the French treaty until by some method-I do not know by what method-we should find out what the United States would think of it. That is the position; if it did not mean that, it did not mean anything. And, whether I should go to the United States, or somebody else should go, the essence of the proposition was the same-that we should ascertain whether the United States would be offended by our making the treaty. We Mr. J. D. REID.
said that, with all due respect, we had to contend that it was none of their business what treaty we made, and that position we retain to-day.


John Dowsley Reid: The minister was brave hen, but he has capitulated since.


William Stevens Fielding: The hon. member (Mr. J. D. Reid) was brave in supporting the treaty then, and now he wants to have a nag at it.


William Sora Middlebro: Perhaps I may be allowed a word. I voted against the French treaty. My recollection is that some member on this side-possibly myself-asked the hon. minister if he did not think the effect of passing the French treaty would be to bring upon us the maximum tariff of the United States. The minister replied that he did not think our passing the treaty would justify the United States in taking that course.


William Stevens Fielding: That is what I said then, and I say the same to-day. More than that, I tell my hon. friend (Mr. Mid-dlebro) now that we have not given the United States the benefit of the French treaty, and we are getting the benefit of the United States minimum tariff.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister be good enough to say whether the objections that were raised by the United States government were, practically, altogether owing to the fact that the French treaty had been accepted by this government?


William Stevens Fielding: Largely. That was not the only point, but it was the main point. Undoubtedly, it was the fact that we had granted another country rates of duty which we were not willing to grant to the United States that made the essence of their objection.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the hon. gentleman give us any other point that was objected to outside of the French treaty?


William Stevens Fielding: I told the House at an early stage of my address that the wood question was the subject of some consideration. But it is only fair to say that, after discussion, the United States did not formally present that, and did not, in the end, complain of it.
I have said that it is possible that the United States might not have imposed upon Canada the maximum tariff. My opinion was to the contrary, and my information was received from the best sources in the United States, and is, at all events, as well founded as that of hon. members who hold the contrary. The effect upon these countries of a tariff war was apparent to all well-thinking men. There are men in the

United States, men of influence in that country, who were at one with us in our desire to be exempt from that maximum tariff. Nevertheless, as I have said, our information was that, in all probability the president, friendly though he was would be likely to feel that he was bound to impose the maximum tariff upon us. I am willing to assume that we might have accomplished this without any concession. I am willing to assume, for the moment, that if we had, to use the common phrase, been content to stand pat, we might have obtained the United States minimum tariff. And that, perhaps, would have been a great triumph for Canada. To hurl defiance at the United States when all the nations of Europe were accepting their terms and conditions, might have been a heroic method. But there are victories that are dearly bought. If we had achieved such a triumph over the United States government as I have spoken of, while, for the moment, it might have been a cause for congratulation, yet it would not have made for the future advantage of the relations between these two peoples. If, therefore, we could avoid the maximum tariff, if it was likely to be imposed, if we could avoid a conflict with the United States by the granting of some concessions-not very numerous, and from our point of view, not very important-I claim that, in the interests of this country for the present, and the future, it was far better that we should make these concessions than even that we should have a triumph over the United States on terms which would have left soreness and ill-feeling and might create friction in the negotiations that arise from time to time. So then, in view of the spirit with which we found the president dealing with the question, believing, as I fully believed, in his earnestness of purpose, in the sincerity of his professions of a desire to establish the best relations with Canada, we felt that it was worth our while to consider whether we could not find some common ground of action, something that we could grant to the United States without injury to ourselves, but which they might accept as an honourable basis of compromise. The question then arose as to what concessions we could grant to them. Two principles were laid down for our guidance, first, that the concessions should not be numerous; we could not give them the 110 numbers of the French treaty or anything approaching it, we could give them only a small number of concessions; second, that these concessions should not involve anything which could 1901
place at a disadvantage any of our established Canadian industries.


William Findlay Maclean: Do these concessions apply only to the United States, or are they general?


William Stevens Fielding: No, we declined to grant any concessions specifically to the United States. We provide that the concessions which are granted are in the general tariff and shall apply to the whole world.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: Would the minister say whether, in his judgment, the concessions he has made, aside from the United States minimum tariff, are more of an advantage than a detriment to this country?


William Stevens Fielding: I think on general principles-I am not sure that my hon. friend will agree with me-that a reduction of duties on articles of general consumption is almost always an advantage to the people.


Arthur Meighen: Why were not these concessions or reductions made long ago?


William Stevens Fielding: They have served a very useful purpose in that we have them to give now.


Arthur Meighen: Then do I understand that for some years we have Deen cutting off our own noses in order to have a whip to use on the United States?


William Stevens Fielding: I am glad to hear my hon. friend suggest that these concessions should have been given long ago. But I want to know what has become of adequate protection.'


John Allister Currie: The country has known what this schedule of concessions is, and parliament is waiting now to hear them from the minister.


William Stevens Fielding: Considering how many times my hon. friend has come to his feet to interrupt me, I think I have some reason to complain that he should now find fault with delay. Besides, the whole country knows what they are, and nobody can be interested in waiting for them any longer. However, we came to the conclusion that we would grant reductions in the general tariff upon a list of 13 items. There was a time when that was considered an unlucky number, but the superstition is thrust aside now, and 13 is a lucky number. I will now read the resolution containing the concessions:


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I do not see any reduction on agricultural implements.


William Stevens Fielding: No. Again I ask: What has become of the adequate protection that was demanded from the other side?


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: The hon. gentleman promised us free trade in agricultural implements.


William Stevens Fielding: Never.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Would the minister give us the amount of imports of those Mr. FIELDING.
articles into Canada, and the loss of revenue that will accrue?


William Stevens Fielding: Not to-day, if you please. I have not the information at hand. I do not think the loss of duty will be a very heavv one. But even so, I think that in the present flourishing conditions of our revenue we shall be able to stand it. I have already mentioned that these reductions are to be made m the general tariff. The effect of that is that the rates on these items of the general tariff and of the intermediate tariff will be the same. There are a number of cases running through our Tariff Act in which the rates of the general and the intermediate are the same. There are some rates which are the same, not only in the general and intermediate, but also in the preferential. The cases, however, in, which the general and

intermediate rates are the same will be extended by these 13 items. As I have already said, I think the House will agree with me that while these duties have served a purpose in obtaining the favourable action of the United States they are not items which come into serious conflict with any of our* own industries, and so far as they go, they will be deemed reductions of duty to the consumer. Extremists on both sides will have extreme views as to this arrangement. I have no doubt that some will say that the United States have the best of the bargain and that others will say that Canada has the best of the bargain. In both cases, I believe, they will be wrong. The best kind of bargain is one where both sides meet each other in a good spirit and are satisfied that the spirit of compromise has prevailed. I believe it is a good thing for Canada and I believe it is a good thing for the United States. It is a good thing because it will prevent the bringing on of the maximum tariff, if it had to come; and even if it were not to come I say again that I believe that it was better that we should bring about this result by some concession, of no great importance to us but of some value to the United States, than that we should quarrel	them,
because, though we might feel that we were right, victory might be dearly bought, if it should prevent the good relations which ought to prevail between) the people of these two great countries lying side by side.
I wish to say a word or two before concluding about the British ambassador. It is only right that I should do Mr. Bryce the justice of saying that in all this transaction he gave us his hearty sympathy, co-operation and support. I sometimes read in the public press references to alleged friction between the embassy at Washington and the Canadian government, but I may say that there is not the shadow of a foundation for anything of the kind. No ambassador at Washington has ever taken more trouble than did Mr. Bryce-I think I might say no ambassador has ever taken 30 much trouble -to put himself in close touch with the Canadian government. He has come to Ottawa repeatedly to meet our ministers, and public men, and in this, and every other negotiation Mr. Brvce and his tariff at Washington have given us their hearty sympathy, co-operation and support. When Mr. Bryce was approached as to the manner in which this negotiation should be conducted, he suggested that the most effective means would be to put [DOT] the United States government in close and direct touch with the government of Canada. He advised them accordingly, and the result is to be found in the arrangement that has been made.
I have stated that there is not a great deal of correspondence upon this subject, but there is some, and I should like, before concluding, to place the House in possession of it. Down to a very recent date negotiations were conducted almost entirely through interviews and conversations between representatives of the two governments, On the 26th March last, which was Saturday, after the fullest discussion of the whole matter with the President and Secretary of State, Mr. Knox, I addressed the following letter to Mr. Knox:
Washington, March 26, 1910.
My dear Mr. Secretary,-In the conference which, upon his invitation, I had the honour to hold with the President of the United States at Albany a few days ago, it was represented to me that the settlement of our present tariff differences and the opening of the way for negotiations, having in view a broader scheme of reciprocal trade, would be facilitated by Canada making some reductions in its present scale of duties as applied to products of the United States. While unable to waive any ot the contentions which Canada has held throughout our discussion of the subject, I have appreciated the exceptional circumstances and reasons advanced by the President in support of his request. A tariff conflict between the two countries would undoubtedly be a matter of the gravest concern for both, involving widespread disturbance of trade, heavy loss to citizens of both countries and the creation of much friction at a time when the_ cultivation of happier relations is most desirable. Both parties to the difference should, I realize, be willing to go as far as possible to avert such a conflict.
I have observed with satisfaction that your government are not disposed to press some of their earlier contentions respecting our commercial treaties which, from our point of view, we could not admit. This being the case, I feel that our government should go as far as possible to meet the views of the President and to respond to the good spirit in which he has approached the subject. On behalf of the Canadian government I agree that we shall forthwith recommend to the parliament of Canada such amendment of the Canadian customs tariff as will reduce the duties on the list of articles agreed upon between ns, such articles and the reduced rates of duty being as follows:-
I shall not read the list as I read it a moment ago. There is a note as to the meaning of the abbrevationS, &c., and the concluding paragraph is as follows:
It is understood that these reductions are not to apply exclusively to the products of the United States, hut that the Canadian government are free to apply them to the products of any other country.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. S. FIELDING. The Honourable P. C. Knox,
Secretary of State,
Washington.
I shall now read a letter from Mr. Knox,

Secretary of State for the United States, addressed to me on the same day.	.


Mr.   J.@: I). REID. Is that written in Washington?	.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is the only place I had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Knox.


John Allister Currie: I wish to know if that contains all the correspondence with Mr. Knox, or is it only a partial return? Have you his letter asking for the negotiations?


William Stevens Fielding: This is the correspondence which took place in Washington on the conclusion of the negotiations.


John Allister Currie: It has nothing to do with the preliminary arrangements?


William Stevens Fielding: If I had waited to bring down all the preliminary correspondence, I might have had to keep my hon. friend until to-morrow, when I know he is burning with anxiety for information; so, I hastened from the train with all due speed in order that I might explode this upon him.


John Allister Currie: I have to apoligize to the minister. I thought he had been here a couple of days looking over this correspondence.


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon. friend that I was not. This letter i3 dated March 26, 1910, and is as follows:
Department of State, Washington,
March 26, 1910.
My dear Mr. Minister,-The adjustment of trade relations between Canada and the United States under existing tariff legislation, conducted through you at the instance of the British ambassador, and brought to a successful conclusion so largely through your own patient and earnest efforts, cannot fail to be a cause of mutual felicitation between the thoughtful people of both countries.
I am gratified that the recent tendencies towards a more perfect understanding between our respective countries, manifested so conspicuously in the maturing adjustments of boundary, boundary waters, fisheries and other long-standing differences, will not be affected by the irritations which would have resulted from our failure to agree upon the tariff question.
The agreement encourages the hope that the future trade relations of the two countries will become even more intimate and expanded, and will be regulated in a spirit of cordial reciprocation and interdependence. The common commerce now amounts to a vast sum, and its extraordinary growth is an index of the vast industry and commercial development among both peoples. It seems clear that this trade should be fostered so that the markets of each may be open to the other on the most advantageous terms possible for the interchange of commodities, and that such interchange undoubtedly can be promoted by the two governments without impairing their national economic policies.


William Stevens Fielding: The President is confident that the policy of broader and closer commercial relations with Canada will receive the hearty support of the large majority of the people of the United States, and he has learned with much satisfaction of the existence of a similar sentiment in the Dominion. It may be added that the conditions of the present day, as contrasted with the traditions of the past, are bringing into clearer light the truth that not only mutual trade interests but ethical and social considerations of the highest moment reinforce this common sentiment.
Let me, then, take this opportunity to express, by his direction, the desire of the President that your government will find it convenient to take up with this government, at such time and in such manner as may be mutually satisfactory, the consideration of a readjustment of our trade relations upon the broader and more liberal lines which should obtain between countries so closely related geographically and racially, as indicated by the President in his recent public utterances. I am, my dear Mr. Minister,
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) P. C. KNOX. The Honourable W. S. Fielding,
Minister of Finance of the Dominion of Canada.
The other letter which concludes the correspondence is as follows:
Washington, March 26, 1910.
My dear Mr. Secretary,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your letter of this date.
The Canadian government very heartily reciprocate your expressions as to the desirability of improving the commercial relations between the United States and Canada, and will gladly avail themselves of the invitation of the Presiden to take up with your government, at such time and in such manner as may bo mutually satisfactory, the consideration of a readjustment of these relations upon broad and liberal lines. The recent public utterances of the President in that direction have afforded much satisfaction to the Canadian people, who will receive with pleasure the formal confirmation of them, which is now conveyed to our government through you. I am confident that your assurances will be received also with much gratification by His Majesty's government in London, who will find in them further evidence of the desire of the government of the United States to maintain the most cordial relations with the British empire.
Allow me to express for myself as well as for my colleague, Mr. Graham, who has been associated with me in the conference at Washington, the most sincere thanks to the President and yourself for the cordiality of your welcome, and the very frank manner in which you have, discussed^ the questions that have engaged our attention.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. S. FIELDING. The Honourable P. C. Knox,
Secretary of State,
Washington.
I shall, Mr. Speaker, place upon the table for consideration in Committee of the

Whole, resolutions destined to give effect to the tariff changes -which I have already proposed to the House. I venture to present this statement, Sir, in the fullest confidence that it will commend itself to the judgment of the House-I trust I may say to both sides of the House, for there is and there should be no party question in such a matter. I am inclined to think that if we desired some momentarv\ popularity we might have pursued another course. I think there is a general and perhaps a justifiable feeling in the minds of the people of Canada, that in the years that have passed our American friends have not treated us generously or fairly with regard to these commercial questions, and consequently there is a strong disposition -at all events there has been a strong disposition-rather to resent any further communication with them. But, that is of a time that has gone; that is of a time when Ottawa went to Washington: Now we have reached a time when Washington has come to Ottawa, and that, I think1 Sir, is a matter which must be a source of gratification to us all. And though for the moment, by what is called the 'stand-pat' policy, by refusing to do anything, by bidding defiance to the United States, there might be a momentary hurrah, I am persuaded) that as the difficulties of the maximum tariff would become apparent, as great industries in Canada would be found to suffer, as men would find their capital impaired and as other men would find themselves thrown out of employment, even though it might be temporary, even though in the end we might have been able to overcome it : I am strongly persuaded that the feeling which at a moment might be one of gratification would change to a feeling of anxiety and alarm, and that in the end many a man would turn to the government and say: Was it not possible to have averted this disaster? was. it not possible by some moderate concession to have given the President of the United States an opportunity to pursue a more friendly course? And, if it could then be shown that some small and comparatively unimportant concessions could have effected a settlement, that the government could be rightfully charged to make these small concessions, that government would be condemned, and deservedly so. I present this question, Sir, with the fullest conviction that the small concessions we make are reasonable concessions for the purpose of meeting the United States- the President of the United States and -his Secretary of State particularly-in response to their good will. I accept the assurance of their good will for the present and of their good intentions for the future, and I am satisfied that in making this friendly
arrangement we are doing that which is best for the future of Canada.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I wish to ask the Minister of Finance a question which I am sure will be asked of us:	What concessions have the American government made to us?


William Stevens Fielding: If my hon. friend cannot find an answer to that auestion in my speech be would not find it in anything further I can say.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has introduced this subject in an exceptional way on a motion for the House to go into Committee of Ways and Means, which practically makes it a portion of the budget debate. I would like to ask the minister that this matter be left open so that it may be discussed at a later date, because owing to the absence of the leader of the oposition and the ex-Minister of Finance and others who did not expect such a discussion to-day it would be very inconvenient to proceed with the debate. Now, with regard to the correspondence, in my judgment the House is entitled to all the correspondence that has passed between the Finance Minister and the President of the United States or the government of Canada and the government of the United States.


William Stevens Fielding: I can assure my hon. friend that there is no correspondence of that nature. What I referred to was correspondence that might have taken place between the British ambassador and the Secretary of State at Washington, which perhaps might be deemed to be confidential. I can assure my hon. friend that there is no correspondence on the part of this government! which is not substantially before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have always understood that when two nations are negotiating in this way each makes memoranda of what each proposes whether that is accepted or rejected, and that memoranda is always available for parliament afterwards. In negotiations of this kind the confidential correspondence must be very limited, if indeed there be any such. All we have is the three letters which are all dated on the 26th of March, whereas there were negotiations carried on for quite a time previous to that. My hon. friend (Mr. Schaffner) asked a very pertinent question from the minister as to what concession we had received from the United States in return, and as the minister was unable to answer I presume we have received none. If we accept the statement of the minister, the only duty cast on the president was to interpret a question of law as a judge on the bench would, and we



[Stage Direction]
are bound to assume that the president would treat that question judicially without consideration of what concessions we might make. However, the Minister of Finance would lead the House and the country to believe that the judicial interpretation of that law by the president depended on our giving the United States concessions on these 13 items, which, I do not think is very complimentary to the president in his judicial capacity. I am bound to believe that it would not have influenced the president to any extent; but, as the minister has said, he interpreted that law as a judge would interpret it if he were on the bench. Consequently, all the concessions have been on our side, and we have received no concessions in return, and I believe the country will reach the same conclusion that I have, that this is practically a give-away on our part all along the line. I was in hopes that on some important lines in which it would be of advantage for us to have the American market, such as grain, dairy products and animals, they *would have given us some concessions, but there is no mention whatever made of them. In regard to pulpwood, the situation is the same as it was before. If we impose an export duty on pulpwood, they are liable to increase their duty correspondingly. I have not much to say on the matter, because we are not in a position to judge qs to what we do get, until we know what our importations of the various articles named have been from the United States, and from other countries, and what the reduction in the revenue is likely to be as a result of the reduced duties. There are many other important questions involved which ought to be carefully considered, and which the minister assures there will be an opportunity to consider. I wish to make one more observation. The hon. minister said that there was a time when our pilgrimages were to Washington, but that this had been reversed. It seems to me, from what has come out in the press regarding the good offices of the editor of the Toronto ' Globe ' in disabusing the minds of the American government of false impressions, that he must have been sent to Washington by this government.
William Stevens Fielding: Will my hon. friend permit me to say that I did not treat that question seriously when it was presented by the hon. member for Leeds and Grenville (Mr. J. D Eeid); but if my hon friend is serious, let me say that there is no shadow of foundation for the suggestion that that gentleman was sent to Washington by the government.


John Dowsley Reid: Then he must have told an untruth.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


William Stevens Fielding: No, I am sure that Mr. Macdonald wTill not say that the government sent him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: He at least endeavoured to leave the impression on the country that he had accomplished something and had done some substantial good. It is unlikely that he would go down there on his own mere motion, without suggestion or advice from some source, and the most natural source would be either the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance. The question is suggested to me, was he at Albany as one of the plenipotentiaries?


William Stevens Fielding: There were many newspaper correspondents at Albany, and Mr. Macdonald was one of them. What does my hon. friend mean by asking if he was one of the plenipotentiaries?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I mean did he take part in the discussions?	'


William Stevens Fielding: Certainly not, in any shape or form.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am bound to accept the hon. minister's statement, but there is a different impression left on the country from what appears in the ' Globe ' itself.
I have nothing more to say at present, except that I do not think the hon. Minister of Finance was too courteous towards the hon. member for South Simcoe (Mr. Lennox) when he asked if, in the event of these negotiations being carried to a successful conclusion, and along the lines the Minister of Finance anticipated, it would be necessary to have them ratified by parliament before they became law.


William Stevens Fielding: I am placing on the table in the usual form a resolution to bq moved in Committee of Ways and Means, upon which a Bill will be founded; so that this thing cannot be done without the con- . sent of parliament. But, in accordance with the custom of our tariffs, the moment the resolutions are placed on the table they take effect, subject to the ratification of parliament later on.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am speaking of an incident that occurred last week, when the hon. member for South Simcoe asked if any concessions that might be made would require to be sanctioned by parliament, and the minister gave him no advice. ,


William Stevens Fielding: When the question was asked by the hon. member for South Simcoe some days ago, no arrangement had been made, and it would have been very inpolitic to have made any statement.. I certainly had no intention of being discourteous to the hon. gentleman. As this matter is not to be disposed of at once, if any hon. gentleman desires to move the ad-

journment of the debate, there will be no objection.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


William Findlay Maclean: 1 listened with a great deal of interest to the deliverance of the hon. the Finance Minister this afternoon, and propose to discuss it just a few moments. But, in the first place, I think the most important announcement made was that of the right hon. the First Minister that the Canadian government have agreed to exchange ratifications with regard to the International Waterways Commission. That is a very important measure, with far reaching consequences, involving in the highest degree very important interests to this country, and I hope that the treaty will have the effect of settling these international difficulties, and that the result will be beneficial to both countries. Any one who has followed the discussions in the United States recently must have remarked that Senator Root, who was Secretary of State in the late government, said that tariff complications were to be avoided above all things, because they might prevent the exchange of ratifications with regard to the waterways treaty. So that what we have had in this House to-day is the announcement of the settlement of two very important questions. One is the ratification of a treaty which will have the result of settling questions that arise with regard to waterways, and the other is the announcement of the Minister of Finance, that we have succeeded in avoiding a tariff war. That is a satisfactory, hut only temporary settlement of the situation. It is something like the feat of the King of France who marched up the hill with ten thousand men, and then marched them down again. However, there has been some kind of a settlement, and a better approach between the two nations has been reached, and to that extent I am glad to give the government credit for what they have done in the matter. The net result to my mind is this, that at last the great United States have been compelled to recognize that Canada is a free and independent nation on this great North American continent, and that we own, as I think, the better half of it. They have had to recognize also this fact that Canada is not only a free and independent nation, but that we are free to make our own tariff to suit ourselves, and to maintain our commercial autonomy in every sense of the term. The United States have been forced to recognize that, and it has taken a long while to bring that about. They have also been forced to recognize the right of Canada, net only to
make her own tariff for the benefit of her own people, and industries, but to give a preference to the mother country, and the associated states of the empire, and they also have been compelled to recognize our right to make reciprocal treaties with other nations throughout the world. There is also the recognition of the fact that Canada has the right to impose export duties^ Commercial independence, tariff independence, is largely brought about by export duties, and the resources winch ~ are contained in a protective tariff. It was a question of dispute in this country that a tariff could not be used to advance a country. We have demonstrated that it can. Sir John Macdonald, and those who were with him in the early days, and who inaugurated the National Policy, have been vindicated, and the position they took has been amply demonstrated, that a tariff, that bounties and export duties and that all the resources which are in the quiver of the protectionist, are available, and are necessary for the working out of the tariff independence of any nation. And that policy which was begun here a good many years ago with some trepidation, and for which failure was predicted, is to-day vindicated, and is to-day the greatest factor in building up this Canadian nation. Germany has had to recognize, the United States have had to recognize, that Canada is a vast country with a nationality, a fertility, and resources that must command the respect of all the nations of the world.
There is also in this situation a great lesson to the mother country. Our mother country, for some reason or other, and the public men of that country, for a great many years, have been led away by the doctrine that free trade was the best trade for England with other nations. The in-effitjacy of that doctrine has been proved now, and in no case has it been proved so pointedly as in this that Canada, by reason of her tariff position, can command just treatment from the United States which a country that has no tariff or no arrows in her quiver cannot command. If there be one searching thought in the minds of Englishmen to-day, it is that they have made the mistake of their life in thinking that free trade could enable them to get fair treatment from other nations. There is a great party growing up in England to-day which sees that a protective tariff, and even export duties are the only means by which they can compel other nations to treat England in a fairer way. So that the net profit to-day for the Canadian people is that the National Policy, which was started years ago, has vindicated itself, has been accepted by the people of this country, including hon. gentlemen opposite, and is capable of being used to obtain for us rights which we otherwise could not gain. But we must not be led away by

that very sweet letter of Secretary Knox which the Finance Minister read this afternoon with such gusto. The only time when the hon. gentleman becomes really effective is when that crescendo comes into his voice, and he becomes pathetic, as he certainly did this afternoon when he read that letter. But there is nothing in that letter. If you wish to gauge the friendliness of the United States you must examine its purpose, and not the letter of its diplomatists.	.
The tariff of the United States to-day is very unfriendly so far as we are concerned. But it is inspired-and we cannot blame the Americans for it-by the highest kind of national policy. It is designed for the protection of American industry. With that view, they have put their tariff in its most hostile attitude in regard to the products of Canada, that American tariff is a menace to Canada-hardly so designed, I would say-the object being the development of American industry, and it has succeeded most surprisingly in that respect. So, what I warn the House and the country of is this: We have had a friendly settlement of a question which might have involved a tariff war, but nothing has been done, as yet, to take out the sting that is in the American tariff for Canadian products, that seek the American market, and so our duty to-day is to continue in that national policy which is vindicated here today; not to begin to abandon it, or to think that the statement of Secretary Knox that he thinks highly of this country and of Canadian statesmen, can make up for any real disadvantages. The Americans still have their tariff in existence, and they intend to keep it there. And now, under our success of to-day-if it is a success, and I am willing to admit that it is-our duty is all the more the maintenance of a Canadian national policy and a Canadian tariff to meet the unfair tariff that the Americans now impose upon us. If the right to impose an export duty upon pulp has helped to bring this about, why should we not have an export duty upon pulp and other things as well?-on lumber, nickel, asbestos and other products of Canada that are not produced in any other country, and that are now sent out of Canada to the United States to make work for American workmen, profit for American capital and national prestige for the American people. The National Policy has succeeded so well that what we want now is to carry it further and use the instruments we have in our hands to bring the American nation to a sense of the fact that we are determined to go on with the building up of our nationality and the development of our resources.
And now I come to a question which is before this House in another form, but which must be settled. We can no longer Mr. W. F. MACLEAN
afford to allow Americans to come into our country and acquire franchises, to dam our rivers, and to export the power thus produced from Canadian waters to help in the development of the industries of the United States. The moment we let them see, not only that they cannot have our pulp, but that they cannot have our power, they will come to Ottawa again and make concessions, if they have not made them to-day, and make them in the way we want them-in the tariff they impose on the products of this country. We can compel our cousins and brothers in the United States to come to us and help us to develop our resources. There are two ways for the Americans to take part in the exploitation of Canada's resources. One is to come here with their capital and build up industries in Canada; the other is to take the products of Canada and ship them across the line for the development of the United States. We can compel the Americans to come here with their brains and capital and develop Canada's resources within our own territory. And that which enables us to do this is the right we have vindicated to-day, the right to impose export duties, the right to make our own tariff, and give preferences. So, while we should always be friendly with Washington, we should be prepared to carry out the policy that would force them to recognize the position of this country, will force them to come here and develop Canada's resources. No more must this idea be held of allowing them to raid our markets or to use our resources for their own benefit. If we carry out this idea, perhaps, some day, the Americans will come to us with some kind of trade reciprocity. They may say : we want your farm products, and we will remove some of the duties that we impose upon you. If they ever do come, it will be because Canada has taken the strong position of National Policy and is prepared to maintain her commercial integrity no matter at what cost. We must be careful not to be so anxious to win sweet words from the Americans that we shall in any way jeopardize the early carrying out of what I believe is in the air-preferential trade within the empire. I believe there is more for Canada, in her present situation and in her future, in closer relations with the mother country, and with the sister states of the empire than in closer trade relations with the United States. Anything we get from the United States will be the result of-I must use the word, for it is the only one that applies-the result of retaliation. It was this that brought them to time today-not sweet words, but the fact that we have the instruments of retaliation in our hands. As between Canada and the mother country, and between Canada and the sister states of the empire, there is a friendly feeling; there is the knowledge

that we are bound together now by ties ot defence. We must be careful now, in any negotiations we carry on, not to prejudice our chances of greater reciprocal trade within the empire. The one thing that brought the Americans to time to-day was not even the fear of retaliation from Canada or the danger to the republican party of the United States if they imposed the maximum tariff against this country, as the fear that has got into the American mind that the British empire is getting together with regard to trade, and they would like to forestall that coming together if they could.
So we need not fear, from this time, that the Americans will take the attitude they once took with regard to us of refusing to deal with us, and, when we asked them, sending us home with an admonition to mind our own business. They see that Canada has vindicated her tariff integrity, and that Canada, and the empire are coming together for the development of some kind of inter-imperial preferential trade. That being the case I say that the position of Canada is a magnificent one. It is no more surrender or give away. We have now simply got to sit tight, not to sit pat, but sit tight on the policy of the development of our own resources in every direction, to keep all Canadian work for Canadian workingmen, to keep the raw products of Canada within the boundaries of Canada for their subsequent manufacture, and if we find unfair treatment meted out to us by any nation, not to be afraid to apply the lex talionis with regard to that nation. An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, is still good law in tariff situations. It has .been effective in the past, it is effective to-day, and it will be effective in the future. To my mind, as I have said, the net result of the negotiations closed to-day is that Canada has vindicated her position, not only territorially, but she has vindicated her tariff integrity. She has shown her ability to take care of herself, and to join up with the empire in making the empire greater, and in drawing all portions of the empire closer together. She has established the fact that the only instrument towards achieving national greatness, towards achieving imperial greatness, towards compelling respect from all other nations, is the adoption of a tariff policy, and the use of that tariff instrument will compel the recognition of all these things by outside nations. Therefore, what the government has done today in bringing about the recognition that tariff war is not a good thing for either country, they are entitled to what credit they can get out of it. The Canadian people will also be ready to say to-day that the National Policy on which thi3 country embarked some years ago with so much fear and trepidation has more than justified itself, because it has to-day become the basis of Canadian nationality, and of any greatness that Canada may attain on this continent.


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Maclean) ha3 called attention to the fact that to-day marks a notable point in the history of the development of this country. He says that we have to-day exemplified in a very vivid manner that this country has a perfect right to make its own treaties, that it is independent in tariff matters, and that foreign countries have to come to us if they want to make treaties with us. I had always understood that this country was a free democracy-of course under the British Crown. From away back since confederation, the doctrine has never been questioned that we have a perfect right to make our own tariffs. In regard also to making our own treaties, it was not a question of wrenching any right or prerogative whatsoever from the British Crown; it was simply a matter for us to say whether we desired the right to make our own treaties. No limit has ever been placed upon our freedom to do what we pleased in this respect, except the limit that has been placed by the constitution drafted by the people of this country themselves. For that reason I do not see that there is any credit pertaining to the government of the day in effecting this treaty. This is no fresh victory for liberty, because we have just as great liberty as any other portion of the empire. But there seems to be an under current flowing through the speeches of hon. members, particularly on the other side of the House, to the effect that there is a struggle for liberty constantly going on between this country and the mother country, a struggle to acquire some constitutional right. I fail to see it, and no one who is a student of history but must recognize the folly and childishness of anybody who makes that remark.
The Minister of Finance has placed before the House to-day some facts with reference to the treaty, or the alleged treaty, of reciprocity, or whatever you might call it, between this country and the United States. Hj laboured for two hours to make his meaning clear, although I am free to admit that he was sometimes interrupted. But after hearing what he had to tell the House, I thought that at the tail end of his speech he was very much like the man who for a bet rolls a pea uft and down the sidewalk with a toothpick. The whole object of his speech was to show that Canada had made certain concessions to the United States on 13 items, which, after all, did not amount to anything to speak of, end I thought that if be required

two hours to speak of these 13 items, how long wmuld he have required to speak if he had talked of every item in the tariff.
Now, let me take up the real question at issue in this matter. It was not a question at all of whether we1 should give any treaty rights to the Americans, or anything of that kind, as regards any item in the tariff. The issue was simply and plainly this: Have the Americans the right to dominate this country and say to us: Unless you do so and so we will be unfriendly to you. That to my mind is the whole question at issue in this matter. This country was not the country that brought about this condition. We had nothing to do with the framing of this Payne tariff, we made no promises, we were dealing peaceably with the facts as they existed, carrying on our own business, doing our own work, getting our three meals a day, living peaceably with everybody else in the world. Now, what more? The United States of America which has always stood ouc against this two columned tariff which they have recently adopted, finds that the markets of the world are gradually being closed against it. They found France closed against them, they found Spain closed against them, they found Italy closing its doors against them, they found that Germany had closed, its doors against them, and there was no door left open to them but that of Great Britain. So they spy: We will construct this two column tariff and with it we will force Germany, France and Canada to open their markets to us. Now, they passed this Payne-Aldrich tariff, as they call it, and what has happened? This country has been the only country in the world that has surrendered to that Payne tariff that has yielded to the threat of that club. Has Germany surrendered one particle, or France either? They can go on doing business at the old stand in whatever way they like. But we cannot. The way this treaty reads we have surrendered our rights to make our own tariff, we make this maximum and minimum tariff, once you have established a tariff by treaty you cannot raise that tariff. The Minister of Finance is not present but I ask the leader of the government, is it not a fact that once you make a treaty with a country and you fix a rate at a certain figure you surrender your right ever afterwards to change that rate unless you reduce it or denounce the treaty. Of course, he knows very well that is so. They have surrendered now on 13 items, and the next year the United States will come up with some more legislation and clubs and we will have to surrender on twice 13 items. The next year . after they will introduce some more club legislation and we will have to surrender on 50 items, and they will continue slaughtering us in that way. We have let1


Mr.  J. A.@: the opportunity go by. For once in the history of this country we find ourselves in a position to dictate terms to them, and what have we received? Have wre received a single concession beyond what we have had before? We have received nothing but the promise of a president. How many times has a president of the United States promised this country reciprocity of concessions? Time and again, five or six times. Not only that, but five or six times they have sent treaties to Congress giving concessions to this country only to find the treaties kicked out.
Now this is not a matter of our making conditions with the United States. We have surrendered. We have entered the thin edge of the wedge on the question of surrendering to the United States of the right to interfere with our constitutional rights to make our own tariff, and the business people of this country and those who know anything about tariff matters will not overlook that very important point. Let us go back over this very important question. The minister know's that that treaty was aimed at two countries particularly-Germany and Canada. I was very much amused to see the discussion in the Liberal papers about this matter leading to reciprocity. Anybody who knows anything about treaties or treaty-making knows very well that the idea of a reciprocity treaty does not exist to-day as it did before 1890i. The whole form of making commercial treaties has changed, and there is no countries in the world, except the United States and Great Britain, which clings to the old reciprocity treaty idea. Anybody knows that by making this double column tariff, as they have done recently, the United States have also given up the idea of a reciprocity treaty. What is the difference between a reciprocity treaty so-called and a favoured-nation clause treaty? A reciprocity treaty is a straight treaty between two countries in which one country says: We will admit certain articles free, or under, certain conditions, into our country if you will admit certain articles under similar conditions into yours, and it is a bargain between the two of us. That was the kind1 of treaty we negotiated in 1854, but that kind of treaty-making has gone out of fashion.! They talk about obtaining commercial treaties on a reciprocal basis with the United States. Why, there are fourteen of these reciprocal treaties with foreign countries hung up which never have passed Congress. The treaties that are now passed' are such as we have made with France, containing a favoured-nation clause. The favoured-nation clause has been very dangerous to us, and is the thing that has brought us into this trouble. When you make a treaty with any country, which treaty contains a favoured-nation clause, every other country having a treaty with1

the country with which you are dealing is entitled to similar concessions, and it obtains those concessions without giving anything in return for them. You piay give great concessions to France in order to make a treaty, but you must give the benefits of that treaty to every country in the union of favoured nations, without perhaps any return. Supposing Canada made a reciprocal treaty with the United States, every privilege given to the United States must automatically go to France. That is the condition and that is the reason why the Minister of Finance has placed these items in such a way that they are, open to, every country in the world, so that he would not have to acknowledge to thisi House that he had made such a fool treaty as the French treaty is. Let us glance briefly over this matter of treaty making between Canada and the United States. It Was in 1846 that the question first came up. A form of treaty was then negotiated, but it came to naught. Finally, after a great deal of trouble, a treaty was passed in 1854, and it continued from 1854 until 1865. That treaty was of great benefit to this country. Anybody who studies the statistics of that period will know that our trade with the United States was speedily placed upon an even basis. When the treaty was made, the United States sold to Canada $24,000,000 worth of goods, while Canada sold to the United States $8,000,000 worth. In 1865, when the treaty was denounced, Canada bought from the United States $27,000,000 worth of goods and sold them $33,000,000. The reason why that treaty was denounced was that the Americans claimed that this country was making a tariff which would operate, against American manufacturers, and they claimed that we were violating the treaty in spirit. They saw a few factories growing up in this country. Canada had adopted a certain amount of protection, and some factories were built. When the Americans saw factories going up, even saw-mills, they got angry and' said: We will denounce that treaty, or you will have to stop building factories over in Canada. Everybody knows that these charges were made in 'Congress and in the public press, and that these are the true reasons for the abrogation of that treaty* Since then we have made, various efforts to negotiate a treaty with the United States. As the Minister of Finance said, the Hon. George Brown went to Washington and negotiated a treaty. Anybody who reads the life of George Brown knows thatt John Sandfield Macdonald, at the time the leciprocity treaty was denounced, asked the editor of the ' Globe ' to go to Washington as a quasi representative of the Canadian! government to negotiate a treaty on the quiet, exactly as his follower to-day has done. The correspondence is published in tlie ' Life of George Brown/ by Alexander Mackenzie, and no doubt the able editor of the ' Globe ' is a careful student of the life of his predecessor and has followed the same course. In 1874, a new treaty was negotiated. It was adopted by the President of the United States and by this government, and it was a very good treaty. But as soon as it went to Congress it was thrown out because the United States said that if they could squeeze Canada against the wall, she would very soon come into the union. That process, then adopted, has been going on, the United States government has been holding a club over us, and the imposition of a surtax is only another effort to club us into submission. With all due respect to the story that the Finance Minister has put up that this is a great and notable victory for us? the truth is that we have surrendered, that we have shown the white flag. What was done? The United States sell to Canada vast quantities of goods, the principal articles being manufactures of iron and steel. The right hon. First Minister has just withdrawn the surtax against Germany. Germany is a great producer of iron and steel, and as a purchaser of steel, I can assure you that steel can be bought cheaper in Germany than in the United States. There i3 not a single article on the iron and steel schedule to-day but what can be purchased as cheaply outside of the United States as in the United States, if not more cheaply. The other large export from the United States to Canada is farm products. There is not a single thing in the whole category of these farm products that is not manufactured by the farmers of this country. I say manufactured, because I believe that the farmers are the biggest manufacturers in Canada, they are using more machinery and employing a greater number of men than all other manufacturers. There is not an article in that schedule but what could and should be produced in this country. One article on that schedule is coal. Coal is dutiable, and no country would derive greater benefit from a reciprocal treaty with regard to coal than the United States would. The coal fields of the United States are in the Pennsylvania valley, and they can supply coal to the province of Ontario. A few years ago the province of Ontario would require an immense amount of coal in order to turn the wheels of the factories. But, thanks to Sir James Whitney and his progressive policy which is resulting in the development of the water-powers of that province, in a few years there will not be such a thing as a coal-driven power plant in Ontario. It is said that the United States might prohibit the sending of coal into this country, but the fact is that the New England states must have Canadian coal, and they are obliged to pay for it a higher price than I as a consumer of coal would like to have to pay. The millions of

tons of coal produced in the Crowsnest pass go chiefly to the United States, as is also the case with the millions of tons produced at Nanaimo, and, therefore, reciprocity in coal would not affect us to any appreciable extent. In fact, Sir, I believe it would benefit our country. It seems strange to me, and to other users of coal all oveif Canada, why, when the Minister of Finance had an opportunity of doing a little trick by giving reciprocity in something, he did not give reciprocity in soft coal. We all know that the duty on coal is higher than the duty on any other single article in this country, because the cost of coal at the pit mouth in Pennsylvania never exceeds $1 a ton, and the duty is over 50 cents a ton. I do not think that the Cape Breton coal fields would lose anything by reciprocity in coal, because I am satisfied that the miners in Nova Scotia would give up the Montreal market to-morrow if they were able to enter the New England and New York markets.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton).: No.


John Allister Currie: Yes, and the reason is that the market of eastern Canada is restricted for Nova Scotia coal, whereas the market in New England and the eastern states is almost unlimited if there was'reciprocity. I am surprised that the Minister of Finance with his free trade ideas, did not give reciprocity on a few of the agricultural implement schedules. There is no doubt in the world that the great trusts in the United States were moving heaven and earth to prevent a tariff wan We buy $20 per capita to the $1 per capita the Americans buy from us. The leather trust, that has a little edge in! here to-day they did not want a tariff war; the glass trust, one of the largest trusts in the United States which controls the machinery for making common glass holds the trade of the United States to-day and they did not want any tariff war with Canada. Then, there is the crockery trust which wants privileges in Canada and they did not want any higher duty placed against them in the Canadian market. To m.y mind one of the principal objections to a reciprocity treaty with the United States is that the people of Canada suffer enough to-day from local and small trusts without being inundated by the huge American trusts, which would be the result if we enter into reciprocity with them. Almost everything to-day in the United States is in the hands of a trust. Only recently in this parliament we had in evidence the United States water-power trust putting up a fight and we could see how long their arm is. There is a trust on everything in the United States except air, and I have no doubt that when airships become popular they will have the heavens chartered and they Mr J. A. CURRIE.
will be selling us the atmosphere. It is quite possible that in a few years, the member for Rainy River (Mr. Conmee)-I am sorry he is not here to-night-will be seeking a charter for a company to navigate the air for the general advantage of Canada, and when they have got that 'general advantage of Canada' clause in their charter they will make us all pay so much per cubic foot for the air we breathe. Hon. gentlemen may talk about reciprocity in products in any shape or form, but there is nothing to be gained for Canada in that. I need not remind the House that the United States has been hostile to this country in tariff matters from time immemorial. No move has ever been made in this country to get any advantage in trade or navigation that the United States did not do all they could to hamper us and to harm us. Look at what was done in the case of the St, Mary's canal. An effort was made to take the duty off ships going through the Canadian canals in order to increase our lake tonnage, but to counteract this move an Act of Congress was passed by which they shut Canadian vessels out of that canal, and they compelled Canada to go to an expense of $5,000,000 to build a special lock at Sault Ste. Marie. I grant you that the items mentioned by the Minister of Finance amount to nothing, but he has done a great injury to Canada in that he has acknowledged that the United States can get an act of Congress passed and hold a club over the head of the people of this country which they will threaten to use on us unless we bow the knee to them. I think, Sir, the people of Canada have reached the belief that the sooner we light fire with fire and tariff with tariff the better for us. Then, the Americans will come not to Albany but to Ottawa. True, they sent a few young men up here, but the big men only came as far as Albany and the Minister of Finance went to meet them there. I want to tell vou that all the circumstances surrounding this matter appear very strange to me. Who was the editor of the Toronto ' Globe ' working for in the matter; who was he saving the money for? It is worth millions to the American steel trust and the other American trusts to be able to market their goods in Canada. The American steel trust sends some $60,000,000 worth of goods to Canada, and here we have a Canadian going to Albany and doing the lobbying for them. And when we all thought that possibly there might be a little fight, and having gone through a small fight with Germany from which no Canadian suffered, and Germany having thrown up the sponge, then, in the moment of victory the Minister of Finance is called in haste to an interview with the President of the United States, and when he emerges from

his interview he has bowed the knee to Baal and acknowledged that Canada is subject to the United States. I think the people of Canada will recognize that whether there is a large concession or a small concession given to the United States we have abnegated the great principle that we are competent to make tariffs to suit ourselves, and that no country in the world can hold a club over us whether it be the United States or Germany or any other nation. That is the proper principle for us to maintain, that is the principle we should have maintained, but we have lost prestige in this transaction, and the man I blame for it most of all is the Prime Minister of Canada who doubtless instigated the visit of the Finance Minister to Washington.
I hope he will frankly and truthfully tell the House whether Mr. Macdonald was accredited by him to go down and endeavour to patch up some kind of peace with Secretary Knox and the president. If he was not, why then should any attention have been paid to Mr. Macdonald? Why was there such hot haste, why were there telegrams and sudden visits to Albany by the minister and a treaty patched up? What for? Not to give anything to Canada, because we have always had the same thing and we were certainly entitled to every privilege from the United States, we were their best customers, but in order that something might be done, which, to my mind, was derogatory to the principles of fair play and Canadianism which every Canadian in this country wishes to stand up for. The Prime Minister has told us time and again that we do not want any trade with England. Everybody knows that if Great Britain should give us a preference of say a shilling a quarter on wheat it would mean millions to the farmers of this country. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance have said that we do not want anything of the kind, we do not want any concessions of any kind from Great Britain. Yet he will go to Albany and bow the knee to get concessions from the President of the United States.
These thoughts that I have briefly and crudely placed before the House are thoughts that occur to the ordinary individual of this country. The people of Canada have come to the conclusion that as far as any business relations with the United States are concerned, the government of the day are not to be trusted because the interests of this country will suffer in their hands and will be given away.


Mr.  J. E.@: ARMSTRONG (East Lambton) Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Finance Minister (Mr. Fielding) must have been very much encouraged by the remarks of the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). I would suggest that he should get a nice soft seat for him over on that
side and take good care of him as I under stand his paper is owned and controlled by the government of the country, or at least by some one very close to the government. Be that as it may, the Finance Minister this afternoon tried to make this House and the people of this country believe that as far as the present trade arrangement was concerned, he had received from the United States some valuable consideration for the people of this country That hon. gentleman knows full well that instead of receiving any consideration from the government of the United States he was only too ready and willing to get down on his knees practically speaking and beg and plead that the government of the United States would accept as small concessions as possible in order that he might get out of the position he was in. He knows that the exercise of treaty making powers by him in years gone by has not resulted greatly to his interest. If he considers the treaty arrangement with Germany he cannot but appreciate that instead of our having access to the German markets for all the products of our country we have access to that country for only a very small proportion of our products while on the other hand the German people have access to our markets for all the products of Germany on the very same footing they had in 1896. We have access to the German markets for only a very small proportion of the products of Canada. Then, let him consider the French treaty. I was one of those who opposed it as strongly as possible, condemned it in every way and voted in direct opposition to it, believing and knowing that it would be of no benefit to Canada while we were granting valuable concessions to France. Not only were we granting these concessions but we were paying some $200,000 per annum in subsidies to steamships that could only be carrying some of the products of the manufacturers of Canada, while the Finance Minister knows that French products have been coming into this country in increased proportions, while we were unable to get our products into France in return. That French treaty, as he had to admit to-day, was the cause of all the trouble with the United States. He knows that when this matter was up for discussion he gave the members on this side to understand that the French treaty would not be interfered with in any way by the people of the United States. Yet we find him in the very position that we pointed out he would be in only a few months ago. When the Finance Minister tries to make us believe that he has obtained concessions from the United States., he knows that instead of obtaining concessions, he was only too ready and willing to give them what they have to-day. Let us see for a moment the position that we are in in regard to.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Every tariff since 1890, except the Wilson Act (and even that in certain particulars), has made it harder for Canada to do any business in the United States. The trade in barley was slaughtered, the wheat business was cut to the lowest level, the tariff on paper was kept at tremendous height. Whenever Canada thought she saw a chance to build up a trade in the United States, the next tariff Act regularly cut off the possibility.
I could go on reading paper after paper of the United States going to show that'' they are more than delighted with the outcome of the treaty arrangement with Canada. They emphatically state that it would be impossible for the President of the United States to force through such a measure as our Finance Minister seems to think he would. Canada has certainly suffered humiliation at the hands of this government, especially when we consider the fact that the government was backed up in a firm stand against any concessions by practically every newspaper in the Dominion, Liberal and Conservative, outside of perhaps the Toronto ' Globe.' On the 17th of March, the Toronto ' Globe ' made this statement:	%
The Liberals are firm. Prepared to face tariff war if necessary.
But on March 28, it took back practically all it had said. Would the hon. minister consider this fact, that we are buying from the United States $25 worth of goods for every man, woman and child in Canada, whereas the people of the United States buy from us only one dollar of goods for every man, woman, and child, in the United States. Then look at the message which President Taft sent to Congress when he said that the results of the meeting with the Canadian statesmen were satisfactory. The opposition voted against the French treaty. Are we as Canadians going to make a present of our trade advantages to every country which asks for it? You can depend upon it that if we continue the policy that we have laid down with regard to our trade relations, that, as years go by, we will have more and more complications in our tariff arrangements with other countries, and can expect to be placed in just such a humiliating position as we are placed in to-day; and I sincerely hope that whenever the opportunity comes the Finance Minister will arrive at some definite tariff arrangement whereby we shall have one maximum and one minimum rate for all countries. I merely rose to utter my protest against the present arrangement forced upon the Finance Minister, and I trust that in future, if he should take into consideration the tariff, and treaty arrangements of other foreign countries with Canada, he will also get closer to the question of how these arrangements

will affect our position from a British standpoint.


Wilfrid Laurier: The House, I am sure, will agree with me that it is regrettable that in a discussion of this importance, and even in a discussion on any question, such ridiculous statements should be made as we have just heard from my hon. friend. In his opening remarks, my hon. friend quite seriously said that the Toronto ' World/ an important newspaper, was owned and controlled by this government. My hon. friend -ought to be more careful when he makes statements of that kind.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is generally stated.


Wilfrid Laurier: Who states it?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I do.


Wilfrid Laurier: The thing is a slander, so far as the government is concerned, and a slander also so far as the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) is concerned. I think it is also to be regretted too that so much importance should be attached to the fact that Mr. Macdonald, the editor of the ' Globe/ went to the United States. My hon. friend beside me (Mr. Fielding) said in the course of his remarks that, after the matter had been brought to his attention again and again and he had treated it as a joke, he finally made it clear that Mr. _ Macdonald went to the United States on his own account, and never had a mission from this government. Yet although this was the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Fielding), the hon. member for Simooe (Mr. Currie) put the question seriously whether or not Mr. Macdonald had been sent as an emissary or as a deputed agent by this government to the United States. I have only to reply that this government sent no ambassador to Washington. We received ambassadors from Washington. Things have been reversed, as has been said by my hon. colleague (Mr. Fielding). However, I pass by these matters, which have no reference to the question we have to deal with at present.
We had to deal with a question which was a very serious one because we were in this situation that we were threatened "with commercial war with our neighbours. And I have heard Sir Charles Tupper say years ago-and perhaps my hon. friends opposite may remember it-that 'commercial war was not far removed from actual war. It would be a calamity that between Canada and the United States, the United States would impose its maximum tariff upon Canada, and Canada treat the United States in like manner. Every body would regret it, and the action we took was with a view to avert such a calamity, I am 191
free to say that the United States, in the tariff they adopted at their last session of Congress, took a position which Canada would never agree to. The position taken by the United States, in their Act of Congress, was to this effect, that if any two other nations made a treaty of commerce between themselves, by which the one would exchange favours with the other, the United States had the right to ask from both the most favoured nation treatment, and if that were not done, they would impose their maximum tariff on the offending nation. If, for instance, Canada made a treaty with France, or Germany, or Italy, or Belgium, or any other nation, whereby Canada would exchange favours with that nation, the United States had the right to claim similar treatment, and if we refused they would impose on us their maximum "tariff. That matter came up in the early part of the session. After parliament met and the negotiations with France came up for discussion, we were asked "to ascertain what would be the attitude of the United States if our parliament were to ratify the treaty we had negotiated with France. We refused to consider that question. The position we took was that, having made a treaty with France, ve were bound in honour to call on parliament to ratify that treaty, and the United States had no business to interfere in our relations with any other country. We therefore refused to consider what would be the consequences of the ratification by parliament of the treaty we had negotiated with France. At the same time we had reason to believe that, although Congress had adopted the tariff they did and they did it with a great deal of hesitation- there was a large portion of public opinion in the United States which was adverse to the enforcement of the extreme measure put by Congress on its statute-books. We had reason to believe that a large portion of the American people would be sorry that there would be anything but the most friendly commercial relations with Canada, and the event has shown that our surmise was well founded, because when the time was approaching to put the maximum tariff in- operation-as the first of April was approaching-there was a strong feeling of _uneasiness in the United States lest the president would feel constrained to apply against Canada the maximum tariff. Indeed the feeling in the United States was such that, for the first time in the history of Canada, we had American commissioners sent by the government of Washington to negotiate with the Canadian government, and ascertain what would be our position.
Sir, the answer we had to give to the American commissioners was easy for us. We have been requested to place upon the



table the correspondence which embodied our answer to the question. There was no correspondence on this point. The answer we had to give was known by the House even before we uttered it. The answer we gave the American commissioners was the same as we have given to parliament-that the relations between Canada and France as embodied in that treaty had nothing to do with the United States, and the United States had nothing to do with them, and could not be concerned in them. True, the Americans might take a different position; they might say they were concerned in our relations with the other country and wanted to know what those relations were. Our answer would be: These relations, of course, are known; we have given France certain concessions in exchange for the preference she has given us; if you are prepared to give us the same treatment we are prepared to discuss the matter with you; if not, you have no questions to ask us. But it is well known that there was in the United States a different school of thought upon this question. I have stated that we had reason to believe that a very large proportion of American public opinion was averse to any estrangement in the relations between the United States and Canada. But we know very well that there is in the United States an extreme protectionist party which would push the president to apply the maximum tariff against Canada. We know also that there was a certain opinion in Congress and in the entourage of the president that, according to the terms of the law, the president would be bound to hold that the treaty we had made with France was an undue discrimination against the United States, and that, therefore, to put in force the maximum tariff. But, dominating all the situation, there was a strong proportion of public opinion-I believe a preponderating public opinion-which deprecated the possibility of the maximum tariff being put in force against Canada. We did not know exactly what would take place; we did not know whether the president would, or would not, feel himself constrained to put upon us the maximum tariff-there was the possibility. Will anybody refuse to approve my words when 1 say that if we could avoid the possibility of such a result without the sacrifice of Canadian dignity or interest, it was our duty to take the course which woul'd bring about that result? At any rate, I take the position in the name of the government and in the presence of the Canadian people, with regard to the United States and every other nation we will do everything possible to maintain in the case of one and all the best relations consistent with the maintenance of the dignity and the interest of Canada. It was represented to us that if Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
we would make certain concessions we should avoid the possibility of any difficulty with our neighbours, we should avoid the possibility of having this maximum tariff enforced against us. Very well, our answer was easy. We were asked: Cannot you make it easy for us, cannot you make some concessions? We asked: What are these concessions? We were told a moment ago by the? hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie) that w*e had made a surrender. What have we surrendered? In this discussion with the United States representatives we were told: All difficulties will be overcome, all danger will be averted if you will give some concessions. We said: Very well, we will make concessions if it will make it easy for you to give Canada the benefit of the minimum tariff. We were asked: Can you make a concession on figs and dates? We thought that we could give figs and dates without making too great a sacrifice of Canadian dignity, of Canadian interests. Could we give prunes also? Well, we thought that the dignity of Canada would not be interfered with if we gave prunes. We were asked if we could concede also almonds, walnuts, Brazil nuts, pecans and shelled peanuts. Yes, we thought we could give peanuts also. And nuts of all kinds? Yes, and nuts of all kinds. Then, as to photographs, chromos chromotypes, artotypes, oleographs, paintings, drawings, pictures, decalcomania transfers of all kinds, engravings or Drints or proofs therefrom, and similar works of art not otherwise provided; blue-prints, building plans, maps and charts. We thought we could concede these also. We were asked if we could give soap powders, powdered soap and so on. Yes, we thought it was worth while to give even soap powders for the benefit of peace. Then, perfumery, including toilet preparations, non-alcoholic, namely, hair oils- we thought we could concede hair oils- tooth an 1 other powders and washes, pomatums, and so on.. Yes, we thought we could go that far; we surrendered that. Asked if we could give tableware of China, porcelain, white granite ana iron stone- things not manufactured in this country- we were prepared to concede that. And window glass? It is not manufactured in Canada; we conceded that. Watch actions and movements and parts thereof? Yes, we conceded that. Then there was leather-dongola, cordovan calf, sheep, lamb, kid or goat, kangaroo, alligator and all leather dressed, waxed, glazed or further finished than tanned. Yes, we gave that, as it is a raw material for our boot and shoe makers. And last, we were asked if we could give feathers and manufacture of feathers, imitations of fruit, grains, leaves and flowers suitable for ornamenting hats. These are to ornament the hats

of Canadian ladies. We conceded that also. These are the concessions we have made; these reductions of tariff are made not to the United States alone, but to the whole worid.
And now, I am asked: what do you get from these concessions? I answer: We get peace and good relations with our neighbour. And I ask hon. members on the other side: Is not peace and good commercial relations with our neighbours worth all the feathers and artificial flowers in creation? But we are told by my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. J. A. Currie):	The Americans were bluffing; they
were not sincere. Perhaps they were bluffing, as the hon. member says. Or perhaps they were sincere. We were in this position, if we had been stiff with them, they might have chosen to be stiff with us. Canadians number seven millions, while Americans are ninety millions. We have surrendered nothing, we have made concessions which amount to nothing, so far as I can see; and for these we have the good will of that great nation. It is true, we have not reciprocity. My hon. friend from North Simcoe asked: Why did you not get reciprocity in coal, which is so much wanted in Ontario; why did you not get reciprocity in agricultural implements, which are needed in the Northwest provinces? This is true, and it is true also that wre are within measurable distance of obtaining a treaty of reciprocity with our neighbours. There is a possibility of settling all these questions without sacrificing anything. We are to-day in the same position we were three months ago. We have retained our absolute power and freedom of action. We can negotiate treaties with any nations we please, and we intend to do so by commencing with the United States. We can negotiate a treaty with Germany, we can negotiate a treaty with Italy, we can negotiate a treaty with Belgium. We are absolutely free, we have made no surrender of any right, and the first thing we shall do is to endeavour to negotiate with our neighbours, and if possible to get a treaty of commerce with them. We are not insensible to the suggestion of the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean), who advises us to go slowly in this matter. We do not intend to go very fast. There are certain things upon which we can make no concessions, there are certain duties upon which we can not recede one iota from our present position. But there are a number of products in regard to which it would be for the mutual advantage of Canada and the United States that there should be the widest possible extension of our markets on both sides of the line. This is the position we have taken up. I am a little astonished that my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) should not have given us the credit to which I think we are entitled. Now, I can 191J
not take my seat without taking advantage of this occasion to say that, although I have always btien proud of my hon. friend and colleague the Minister of Finance, 1 was never so proud of him as I am to-day. It is due to his efforts that we have averted very serious trade complications with our neighbours. It is due to his efforts, to his conciliatory and clever methods, that we have obtained at last a better treaty of commerce with our neighbours.


William Findlay Maclean: I rise to a question of privilege. During my temporary absence from the House, I understand that the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong), said that my speech here to-night could be understood and construed by the fact that the government of the day owned and controlled the Toronto ' World ' with which I am associated, I believe he made that statement. It is an absolute untruth, there is not the slightest foundation for it. The paper is controlled absolutely by myself and my family, and one other person associated with us. I would not take any notice of that attack, or a lot of other contemptible inuendoes, if they were only made against myself personally; but when they injure a business enterprise, with a very large in vestment, I feel compelled to take notice of them. This is not the first time that I have been the object of contemptible attacks by that hon. gentleman in this House, and it may not be the last. Now that he attacks a commercial enterprise with which I am associated, and makes a misstatement in regard to it, I must ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw that statement, and to accept fully my denial.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is generally understood, Mr. Speaker, that the Toronto
World ' is wholly controlled by members on the government side of the House. That is the statement I made, and there is nothing strange about it.


William Findlay Maclean: I again say that the statement is absolutely false. Not a member of the government has a single share in the Toronto ' World,' nor has anybody else except W. F. Maclean, his wife, and a Mr. Greenwood who is associated with him in the 'World'; and if the hon. member for Lambton and the other gentleman who sits behind him say anything to the contrary, they are guilty of a misstatement, and I insist that they accept my denial and withdraw their discreditable insinuations.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Under the circumstances, the member for Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) should accept the statement of the member for South York (Mr. Maclean).


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I bow to the ruling of the Chair. That is all that it is necessary to say on the subject.


William Findlay Maclean: Then I must ask the member sitting behind him who said that the statement of the member for East Lambton was true, I must ask him also to accept my denial.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The First Minister stated at the beginning of the session that the Waterways agreement was ratified.


William Findlay Maclean: I hope the hon. gentleman (Mr. Sproule) who is a friend of mine will assist me.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood that the hon. member was through.


William Findlay Maclean: Then I ask your protection, Mr. Speaker.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I did not hear any other hon. gentleman except the hon. member for Lambton make the statement complained of.


William Findlay Maclean: Then that hon. gentleman has heard what I have said, and if he is manly he will get up and acknowledge that the insinuations he cast upon me, in my hearing, were unfounded, and he will withdraw them. If he does less than that I say he is not fit to sit in this House and associate with gentlemen.


Mr. HERRON.: I hope the hon. gentleman does not allude to anything I said.


William Findlay Maclean: No, I mean the hon. member for Souris (Mr. Schaffner).


John Herron: I wish to say a few words on the resolution now before the House. Might I suggest to the Minister of Finance, now that lie has capitulated to the United States government, and while these tariff arrangements are under consideration, that this would be a splendid opportunity for him to do something for the western farmers. For many years we have been promised better commercial relations in regard to farm machinery, to wheat and .some other farm products. I think it would be a much greater benefit to this country to put binders on the free list than feathers or perfumery, and things like that of which we have heard to-night. I think this would have been a grand opportunity for the government to fulfil some of the pledges they made years, ago to the farmers of the Northwest. We' know that prior to 1896 the Prime Minister and his follows ers made pledges that if they were in power they would put farm implements on the free list. I do not know whether the Prime Minister himself made that statement emphatically, but many of his followers who afterwards became ministers did make it. I think this would have been a fitting opportunity to insist upon reciporcity in agricultural implements between the two ooun-Mr. SPEAKER.
tries as well as in wheat and other grains. The hon. member for Moosejaw (Mr. knowles) has had a resolution on the order paper asking for lower duties on farm implements for the benefit of the farmers. His resolution was put on the order paper at the beginninng of the session. It has worked from the bottom to the top of the order paper and from the top down to the bottom again. Now we are starting at the top and I believe it will fall through. It is evident that the hon. member has no intention of bringing this before the House this session. I think it is time we should try to do something for the farmers of the west. This resolution reads as follows.:-
That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable that the government should at an early date take into serious consideration the necessity for the reduction of the tariff duties of Canada


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It is against the rule of the House to discuss anything on the order paper.


John Herron: I beg your pardon. I have said pretty nearly all I wish to say on this subject at the present time, any way and I am sorry that the Finance Minister has not been able to do something in the interests of the farmers in negotiating this treaty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The right hon. the Prime Minister referred to the fact that the international waterways convention was either ratified or about to be ratified and I would ask if there is any additional correspondence upon this subject, that he would be good enough to lay it on the table at the earliest opportunity so that it may be seen by the members of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon.
friend (Mr. Sproule) evidently did not catch my remarks. I said that the correspondence would be brought down either on Friday or Monday.


John Dowsley Reid: I just want to say a few words upon this matter. The fact that these negotiations have been going on amused me very much. I Temem'ber that prior to 1896 the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and his associates stated that when they got into power they would go to Washington and get a treaty; in fact, we would have free trade between the two countries. Shortly after they came into power in 1896 the Prime Minister did go to Washington and he knows the reception he got there. He could not do anything.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reception was all right.


John Dowsley Reid: You could not get anything at all, and you came back and

stated that that was the last trip that the Prime Minister or any of his ministers would take to Washington.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Chestnuts are on the free list and you are taking advantage of it, I fear.


John Dowsley Reid: They were put on the free list by the Prime Minister on this trip. After a number of years we find the Prime Minister and the Finance Minister again going to Washington. This time the Finance Minister says that he had the invitation of the president, but if we read between the lines in the Toronto 'Globe' we find that they invite the editor of the Toronto 'Globe' to Ottawa and that he gets instructions to go down to see President Taft and have President Taft send a telegram up inviting the Minister of Finance to a conference. The editor of the 'Globe' came to Ottawa after his interview in Washington. Every one around the House could see him in the lobbies talking with members and ministers and it was the gossip of the lobbies here that an arrangement had been made for the Minister of Finance to be telegraphed for to go down to Washington and interview the president. The interview was arranged in that way and the invitation came from President Taft. When the hon. Finance Minister went to Washington the first thing that he should have done was to try and do something in the interests of the farmers. We all know that the farming industry is the most important industry and the whole asset practically of the Dominion of Canada. But instead of that, when the Finance Minister gets down to Washington, he goes over the tariff to see what can be done to benefit Canada, and the first item that he takes is that of perfumery. He is''willing to allow perfumery to come in free. Then we find on the list feathers, nuts, raisins, &c. These are the things that he is looking after instead of doing something for the farmers. We were promised that when this government came into power in 1896 we would have agricultural implements coming into this country free, but there has been no reduction in the tariff with respect to these articles. The same tariff obtains now practically that was in existence in 1896. What surprises me is that the Minister of Finance did not try to negotiate a reciprocity in so far as agricultural implements are concerned. Then, there is wheat, the great output of the northwest. If we could get wheat into the United States it would be a great help to the farmers of the northwest. But the Minister of Finance did not take the farmers into consideration at all, in so far as the northwest was concerned, and did not try to get any of these articles on the free list.


Mr. MILLER.: What would the hon. gentleman particularly want the Finance Minister to do for the farmers of the northwest?


John Dowsley Reid: I would like him to get reciprocity in agricultural implements as was promised some years ago. The farmers want reciprocity in agricultural implements, and the Minister of Finance should have tried to get an agreement with the United States with respect to them. The hon. member also knows that one hon. member on the other 3ide of the House, at least, told us that he was anxious to get free agricultural implements, but he has not had the pluck to force a division for the last session or two. He ha3 only placed a notice on the paper, but he has never gone any further with it. I am a little inclined to believe that the agreement which was made at Albany a few days ago is not final. It has been hinted in the press that there is a quiet, verbal understanding between the Prime Minister, and the Minister of Finance that the United States should get the free use of our canals, and water courses, and that a treaty will be made.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not a word of truth in it.


John Dowsley Reid: It has been hinted by the press.


Wilfrid Laurier: Possibly.


John Dowsley Reid: I am taking what I read in the press.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, there is not a word of truth in it.


John Dowsley Reid: Another statement is that there is some kind of an arrangement with regard to the water-powers


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


John Dowsley Reid: I am glad to have that information, and to have it in ' Hansard ' because I have read it in the press, and I think it is only fair to bring it before the House so that we will have it properly understood by the public that such is not the case.


Wilfrid Laurier: Such is not the case.


John Dowsley Reid: It is a good thing to know that because it would be very serious if a verbal understanding of that kind were carried out. Another thing I fear may result from this arrangement is this:	The
very fact of this government having to agree to reduce the tariff, or make certain tariff changes, in order to satisfy the United States government makes me feel that if we were at any future time making treaties with other countries we would practically have to consult the United States, and make

the same arrangements with them. We are talking about making treaties with Italy, and other countries. What position are we in if we undertake to make a treaty with one of those countries? If we make a treaty with some other country will not the United States government apply this maximum tariff to Canada? Would it not have been well to have had it settled once and for all? I believe that had we stood in the position we were in prior to making this arrangement we would have been able to come to an understanding and probably we would have been able to make a treaty with the United States from which we would have benefited more than we can under the present arrangement. Our position now is that we are at the mercy of the United States in coming to any further trade relations with them. I believe the concessions we have given them will hamper us in the future in making a more beneficial arrangement. I move the adjournment of the debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned.

[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 181) to authorize the sale or other disposal of certain public lands and the acquisition of certain other lands in or in the vicinity of the cities of Toronto and Winnipeg, respectively.
On section 2,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that he would realize a good deal more out of the sale of this farm than would purchase the other property. Will it be regular to apply the balance to the construction of buildings?


Frederick William Borden: The amount received will be. expended in the purchase of about three times the quantity of the land we at present own. The larger area is necessary for the accommodation of the permanent force. We will get -more land for about the same money.


William Findlay Maclean: When will the minister go on with the construction -of these 'buildings


Frederick William Borden: Immediately-


William Findlay Maclean: You have been promising it for years.


Frederick William Borden: The hon 'member for South Toronto (Mr. A. C. Mac-donell) has made reference to the delay, but the government is not entirely respon/ sible for that. Considerable delay has been due to the fact that legislation was necessary to enable the city of Toronto to acquire the Stanley barracks property, which the government owned. It was only about Mr. J D. REID.
two years ago that the transfer actually took place, and when we got ready to construct the buildings, it was found that a more desirable site could be secured, and that while we only paid $20,000 for the Baby farm, we can sell it for about $160,000, and procure a much larger quantity of land which I think would be perhaps more favourably situated for the purpose for which we want it. It was in the public interest to wait a little longer and see what could be done. There has been really not more than a year's delay, and in the meantime the soldiers have been as comfortably housed in the old quarters as at any time in the past thirty years.
On section 3,


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: What are you doing about the rifle range at Winnipeg?


Frederick William Borden: The modern rifle requires a very extensive range, and because of the danger at Winnipeg it became necessary to increase the quantity of land in rear of the butts. Owing to the growth of the city of Winnipeg the rifle range land had become extremely valuable, and it was found it would cost a great deal' to buy the extra land required at that location. We expect to sell the present rifle range for a sufficient amount to enable us to go further away from the city and at just as convenient a place purchase all the land necessary for a rifle range, and -sufficient as well for the annual camp.


Frederick Laurence Schaffner: I have forwarded a complaint to the minister concerning the alleged danger of the rifle range near Greenway, and I would wish to know from him if the military men can with a high hand set up a rifle range wherever they please? If the Winnipeg range is to be removed because of the danger, the same should apply to the Greenway range.


Frederick William Borden: There are certain regulations laid down with the object of avoiding danger at rifle ranges, and if we know it we will not allow any one tio set up rifle ranges in a dangerous position. I placed an extract from the letter sent me by the hon. gentlem-an (Mr. Schaffner) in the proper hands for investigation, and when the estimates come up I will give him the result of the inquiry.
On section 4,


Angus Claude Macdonell: What is the intention of the government in regard to proceeding with the erection of the military buildings at Toronto?


Frederick William Borden: The plans are now ready, and there will be no delay. The new location-I have explained already why we cannot name it precisely-will be more convenient, and it will in every way better accommodate the militia, the per-

rnanent corps, and the city, than, would the Baby farm. General Otter has selected it with the assistance of General Cotton, which fact ought to be sufficient guarantee to my hon. friend that the site will be well chosen. I can assure the House there will be no further delay in beginning the construction of these important buildings.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is it the intention to consult the local military men as to the location? It would seem to me to be important that their opinion should be taken.


Frederick William Borden: It has been done.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Is it the intention to proceed this year with the erection of these barracks?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: By ' local military men,' are we to understand the permanent force?


Frederick William Borden: No, I do not so understand. I think any officer who is interested in Toronto has been spoken to with regard to this.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The principal military authorities at Toronto?


Frederick William Borden: I think so.


Samuel Hughes: This is not a Toronto affair, it is general?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Is it to be a drill ground?


Frederick William Borden: We hope to have drill ground enough to enable us to use it to some extent for the active militia as well.


Samuel Hughes: The minister has not let the public know where it is?


Frederick William Borden: It has been located, as I have already stated.


Samuel Hughes: Is the land to be expropriated?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


INSPECTION OF GLASSWARE FOR MILK TESTS.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. FISHER moved the second reading of Bill (No. 184) to provide for the Testing of Glassware used in connection with milk tests. He said:	I gave some explanation
of this measure on its introduction. Briefly it is to provide for the testing of bottles on the machines which are used in testing milk for butter fat in creameries, and cheese factories.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2, testing and marking of glassware used for milk tests.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would this not be done in the same way as in the case of the Weights and Measures Act? I thought they were all tested before they were sold?


Mr. FISHER.: They have not been tested hitherto, the object of this Bill is to have them tested.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This test has been used for years, it has been regarded as reliable, and if it is now found unreliable the people's confidence in the provisions made by the minister from time to time with regard to such matters will be shaken.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There has been a dispute as to whether these were .accurate, and it is to secure an authoritative test that this Bill is introduced. I thought the work could be done under the Weights and Measures Act, 'but the officers of the Department of Inland Revenue say it could not.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: Has the Dairy Association asked for it?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: It has been asked for by dairymen.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You will have to appoint new officers?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, the same officers will make" the test. These bottles are sold1 by very few firms.


Mr. PORTER.: Will there be a charge for that inspection?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No.
On section 4, use of glassware not marked prohibited.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That seems to go a little too far. It seems to imply that there can be only one reliable instrument in the testing of milk-the Babcock test. There are other ways of testing butter fat in milk, and, if accurate, they ought to be equally available.	-


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The section does not confine users to the Babcock test, but only provides that if any test bottles are used they must be tested and stamped like the others.
On section 6, regulations, fees for verification, penalties.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What about these fees?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: This is to provide a penalty for violation of the Act, and, as the Bill is in blank, I suggest that the blank be filled by the insertion of the words, 'fifty dollars.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It provides also for the making of regulations, and the establishing of fees for the verification of apparatus referred to in the Bill.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I had not observed that. I would not like to deal with that without consulting my colleague, the Minister of Inland Revenue, who has charge of weights and measures. I think that tne fees ought to be merely nominal, if any are imposed. Perhaps this might be allowed to pass with the understanding that it will be considered later on.
On section 7, Act to be brought into force by proclamation.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I thought the bringing into force of this law called for some warning to those concerned. Having consulted somewhat with the officers of my department, I thought of bringing it into force on January 1 next.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT-CONTROL OF CABLE RATES.
[Stage Direction]
Hon. RODOLPHE LEMIEUX (Postmaster General) moved the second reading of Bill (No. 104) to control the rates and facilities of ocean cable companies, and to amend the Railway Act with respect to telegraphs and telephones, and the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners. He said: For many years the people of Ganada, and especially those connected with the press, have been trying to obtain lower rates from the cable companies. On several occasions the question was taken up, especially by my predecessor, Sir William Mulock, and also by a man who has taken a great interest in this matter, working, I believe, in the best interests of the country, Sir Sandford Fleming, who, as we all know, has been the originator and pioneer of the government-owned Pacific cable. For some years, people have thought that we should have on the Atlantic the system now existing between Australia and Canada, by which the Australian colonies are put in direct communication with America. The question arose whether there should not be an arrangement between the mother country and Canada and a new cable laid across the Atlantic. I, for one, and speaking only for myself, I viewed that project with great pleasure. But when I studied the question more in detail, and on following the discussions which took place at the various conferences in London, in which I was called upon to represent Canada, I found that, so far as the mother country was concerned, the number of shareholders in these cable companies was so great that strong objection would be taken to
Sydney Arthur Fisher: the government partaking in the work of laying a new cable. So, another scheme was devised to get a schedule of rates from the cable companies which would satisfy the public demand and satisfy the press. It was decided to propose for the acceptance of the cable companies that urgent messages should remain at the same rate as at present, namely, one shilling per word; for semi-urgent messages, 6d. a word, and a special rate for the press at 3d. a word. The actual rate for the press is 10 cents a word between England and Canada. That would be the tentative schedule of rates between the mother country and Canada. I need not dwell on the advantages such a rate would be to both countries from the imperial point of view and from the business point of view. Some years ago a blue-book was published by order of the House dealing fully with the subject, and the House will remember the correspondence which was laid on the table when Sir Wm. Mulock was Postmaster General.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We entered into an agreement that, upon a certain rate, we would furnish a certain share of the cost, and the question is whether that rate is paying now or not.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: My hon. friend is thinking of the Pacific end, I am speaking of the Atlantic side. On the Pacific side, it is true that we are partners with Australia, Great Britain and New Zealand in a Pacific cable, the rates for which were established by the Pacific Cable Board on which Canada is represented by Lord Strathcona. The business of the Pacific Cable Board haS not been a very prosperous one, but it is due to the unfair competition of the Eastern telegraph system. However, that question is too broad to be discussed here this evening. My hon. friend is right in stating that the Pacific Cable Board has not registered a surplus every year, but the Pacific Cable Board is paying expenses, and I think is putting aside something every year towards the payment of the whole system. Now to come back to the Atlantic end of this system, I have given the result of my investigations in England, and my discussions with the Postmaster General. I may say, however, that the establishment of a Pacific cable has had for effect to make a sensible reduction in the rates in the far east, it has had the effect to reduce conJ siderably the rates on all messages coming from Australia to Europe.
Mr. ARMSTRONG'. What reduction does the minister expect would be brought about by the present measure?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I have discussed the matter with the Postmaster General in England, Mr. Buxton, and 1 agreed to introduce the present legislation to bring the cable companies under the authority of the

Railway Board, as the telegraph, telephone and railway companies are under the jurisdiction of that board to-day.
I expect that by concurrent legislation passed in England and Canada, we can bring the cable companies to establish a schedule of rates which, for urgent messages, will be the same as they are today, one shilling per word; for ,semi-urgent messages, or deferred messages, 6d. a word, and for press rates, 3d. a word. That is the object I have in view. Now there are two Bills before the House (No. 104) and (No. 105), and they must be read together. The object of the first Bill is to bring the cable companies operating between Great Britain and Canada, and all other cable companies touching Canadian territory, under the control of the Railway Commission. Another object is to bring cable companies operating in conjunction with telegraph companies under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board as regards rates. Traffic arrangements also would be subject to the jurisdiction of the board, just as in the case of railway, telephone and telegraph companies. They will have to submit their tariffs and tolls for the approval of the board within a period of four months after this Bill becomes law. The amendment proposed in the next Bill is to control the sending of telegrams. Under the proposed system, the telegraph companies will send first the urgent messages, then the deferred messages. There are five companies doing a cable business between Great Britain, Canada and the United States, namely, the Anglo-American, the Direct United States, La Compagnie Francaise, the Western Union and the Commercial Gfcible. The two first are British companies, the third is French, and thq last two belong to the United States. The Anglo-American has laid eight cables across the Atlantic, four of which have passed out of use, The Direct United States has one line, the French company one, the Western Union two, and the Commercial Cable five lines. All of these lines, seventeen in number, touch points in Canada. Of these thirteen are in service. The Anglo-American, the Direct United States, the French, and the Western Union companies have a pooling arrangement between them. They are allied with the Western Union, and the Great Northwestern companies for the transaction of their land business in Canada, and the United States. The Commercial Cable does not belong to the pool. Its land business is carried on by the Canadian Pacific Telegraph lines in Canada, and by the Postal Telegraph in the United States. I anticipate that we can come to a satisfactory arrangement with the cable companies by which a fair schedule of rates will be submitted to the Railway Board. On the whole I believe this legislation is highly desirable. It is the next best step, to my mind, to a government owned cable between Canada and Great Britain. As my hon. friends know the question was discussed at length at the last imperial press conference, and the sentiment was very strongly voiced that we should have cheaper telegraph and cable communications between Great Britain and Canada in order to disseminate news from the heart of the empire, and so bind more closely together the mother country and her colonies.
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, and House went into committee thereon.
On section I; interpretation,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: By what authority does the minister contend that he has the right to place these companies under the Railway Act, and make them subject to these provisions? I imagine that many of these companies have their corporate powers from other countries. Although they may be working in connection with lines that have received their corporate powers from the federal parliament, still they have received their powers from other sources. Is it contended that we can control their rates as if they had received their corporate powers from us?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The point of my hon. friend would be well taken if we attempted to control their rates outside of our own country. The Bill has for its object the control of rates between Canada and Great Britain by putting them under the jurisdiction of the Railway Board. All the companies that touch Canadian territory come within the jurisdiction of the board.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Suppose a company got its corporate powers from the imperial parliament, and its line extended from Australia, or England, to Canada; is it contended that we could control its rates?


Rodolphe Lemieux: My hon. friend perhaps did not follow what I said at the beginning of my remarks that this legislation must be implemented by British legislation, and that when it is so implemented we can make an arrangement both ways.
On section 4; traffic to include cable messages,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understood the minister to say that there will be concurrent legislation in the imperial parliament. Has he any assurance that concurrent legislation will be enacted?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I stated a moment ago that I had various interviews last year, and in 1908 with the ex-Postmaster General Mr. Buxton. I see that he ha3 been promoted since. Mr. Buxton entered into negotiations with me immediately before the
COMMONd
general elections wliich took place this winter in England. I think I would then have succeeded in obtaining from the British government an authoritative statement that such concurrent legislation would be brought forward, but I was told by Mr. Buxton that in view of the difficulties arising out of the political situation in England he could not give me the promise that this legislation would be brought about during the present session. He did not know how the government would fare after the elections, and he could not make that promise, but I received from him the assurance that the matter would be taken up seriously by the government.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the reason that it is provided that the Act shall come into force by proclamation?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes. I find the letter which I received from Mr. Buxton on November 28, 1909, to which I referred a moment ago as regards the assurance given me by him:
~ T .	November 26, 1909.
Dear Lemieux,-I am glad to have the further opportunity of discussing with Lord otrathcona and yourself the very important question of cable rates between the Dominion and this country.
Unfortunately, the present moment does not appear to be one in which the question could be very satisfactorily considered.
Since you left Canada a political crisis has arisen over here, and a general election early *n the year appears to be inevitable. We were X think, all agreed that such a moment would not be an opportune one on which to enter into negotiations with the cable companies tor the reduction of rates, or to deal with the question in any other way. A government under these circumstances could not speak or a<T authority and effectiveness.
I hope that later, when the political atmosphere has cleared, it will be possible to enter on a serious and practical discussion on the subject, such as that which was suggested for last spring but which was postponed.
Yours very truly,
wu tt	(S"dT->
SYDNEY BUXTON,
ihe Hon. Kodolpiie Lemiecx, K.C.
I discussed with Mr. Buxton the plan outlined in this Bill.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It looks pretty hazy now.	'
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


TELEGRAPHS ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 105) to amend the Telegraphs Act-Mr. Lemieux-read second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2,
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does this require concurrent legislation?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Mr. WRIGHT.: What is the reason for postponing the coming into force of this Bill?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Its provisions would require concurrent legislation in Great Britain.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister answered me a moment ago that it did not.


Rodolphe Lemieux: We can, of course, bring the Act into force without concurrent regulations with regard to cables which are transmitted to a point in England, but it would probably not bind them as effectively.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


MILITIA PENSION ACT-AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
House went into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Militia Pension Act, chapter 42 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as follows
By inserting the following section immediately after section 6 thereof:-
6A. Time served in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police may also be included in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of this Act.
2. In such case the yearly deduction of five per cent upon average pay under this Act from any pension shall be reduced by the average yearly deduction from the officer's salary or pay as a police officer made under and for the purposes of Part II. of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police Act, or made under and for the purposes of the Civil Service Superannuation Act, or under Part I. of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act.
6B. The following times may also be in-' eluded in the term of service of an officer for the purposes of this Act:
(a)	Time served with the military forces in South Africa in any one or more of the years
1899,	1900, 1901 and 1902, and the time during which the officer was invalided but remained on full pay on account of wounds, injuries or disease suffered or contracted on such service:
(b)	Time served by an officer of the Canadian militia with the South African Constabulary ;
(c)	Time served with the third (special service) battalion of the Royal Canadian regiment of infantry at Halifax; and
(d)	Time served with the Yukon field force in any one or more of the years 1898, 1899 and
1900.
(e)	Half the time served in the active militia other than the force, if he has served at least ten years in the force: Provided, however, that the time to be credited to an officer under this paragraph for active militia service shall in no case exceed ten years; and provided further than if an officer's pension is increased by reason of this paragraph, then, in addition to the deductions mentioned in section 8 of this Act, such pension shall be subject to an annual deduction for a number of years equal to the number of years added
€013

to his service under the authority of this paragraph, such deduction to be equivalent to five per cent of the pay which the officer was receiving at the time of his retirement from the force.
By adding at the end of subsection 2 of section 12 of the said Act the words: and in the case of such non-commissioned officers and men as have been or may hereafter be transferred from His Majesty's regular forces to the permanent force under arrangements made between His Majesty's government and His Majesty's Canadian government as to the pensioning of such non-commissioned officers and men.'
By adding to the said section 12 the following subsection:-
3. The following times may also be included in the term of service of a militiaman for the purposes of this Act:-
(a)	Time served with the military forces in South Africa in any one or more of the years 1899, 1900, 1901 and 1902;
(b)	Time served with the South African Constabulary;
(c)	Time served with the third (special service) battalion of the Royal Canadian regiment of infantry at Halifax;
(d)	Time served with the Yukon field force in any one or more of the years 1898, 1899 and 1900; and,
(e)	Time served in the employment of the government of Canada in connection with the militia stores of Canada prior to the organization. of the ordnance stores corps.-Sir Frederick Borden.
Mr. 3PROULE. This will require some explanation. ,
Frederick William Borden: Paragraph 6a refers to time served in the Royal Northwest Mounted Police. That force has a Pension Act similar to that of the permanent'force, and this is simply to facilitate an exchange from one corps to the other, so that if an officer who has served in the Mounted Police, should join the permanent force, the time he had served in the Mounted Police, and for which he had contributed would count in the militia. 6 (b) and the following paragraphs are intended to allow officers who served in the military service in South Africa or with the Constabulary in South Africa, or with the regiment which served at Halifax, to relieve the British garrisons there, and allow them to go to South Africa, or in the 200 men who served in the Yukon field force for two years, to count the time they served in that way in estimating their pension. Last, and perhaps more important that all others, it Is proposed now to allow any officer of the active militia who becomes an officer of the permanent force, and who serves in the permanent force ten years to count half the time he might have served with the active militia, not however, to exceed ten years. Thus if he had served thirty years in the active militia before becoming a permanent force officer, he could only count ten years, just
as if he had served twenty years. If he had served ten years he could count five years. This is thought to be desirable to encourage a better class of officers who have served in the active militia, and received - valuable experience there to come into the permanent force. It will be to the public advantage very often to take from the active militia an officer who has had the advantage of serving in that body. At present we cannot get these officers unless they are wealthy men to come into the permanent force late in life because there is no chance for them to get a pension. A man must have served twenty years in the permanent force in oTder to receive a pension. A man of forty-five who comes from the active militia into the permanent force cannot serve that length of time, so that officers of the active militia are not very desirous of going into the permanent force under existing conditions. We propose to improve the conditions in order to have the advantage of getting a few of the best officers of the active militia into the permanent force, and we think it will have a tendency to bring the two forces into better relations with each other. Such an officer coming into the permanent force from the active militia, we will say with a maximum of ten years credited to him, that is to say twenty years in the active militia, would pay, when the time comes that he would be entitled t-o a pension, his 5 per cent into the treasury for the whole of the ten years he had served in the active militia on the pay which he receives at the time he is pensioned. That is to say that 5 per cent would be deducted from his pension. That is upon the largest amount of pay of which he is in receipt, and it has been calculated that the loss to the treasury will be little if anything. In regard to this pension law as it applies to the permanent force, after ten years experience, it is just about self-sustaining, and there is not likely to be any very considerable deficiency even after this clause has been introduced into the law.


Samuel Hughes: In subsection (b) and the following sections, the intention is that while a man must be an officer at the time he is pensioned, the time he served in any capacity in the forces enumerated shall be counted.


Frederick William Borden: That is the intention. If a good man, say a sergeant in the active militia went into the permanent force, and became a warrant officer or an officer, the time he had served in the active militia would count.


Mr. WALLACE.: I would move that another subsection be added to be called subsection (f):
The time served by an officer of the Canadian militia as pay clerk in any military district prior to the 31st of July, 1909.

That is when the pay clerks were taken into the army pay corps.


Samuel Hughes: Were they not on the list of active militia before that?


Thomas George Wallace: No, they were jsst civilians.


Frederick William Borden: They were not in the Civil Service either, so that their position is peculiar. I have no objection to these coming in, but I was told they would come in under the general condition clause.


Thomas George Wallace: No, they do not.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You would have to get the consent of the Governor General to this.
Progress reported.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved the adjournment of the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What business to-morrow?


Wilfrid Laurier: The motion of the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Lennox).


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, March 31, 1910.