1911-01-26

BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE.

Mr. MILLER.: Mr. Speaker, if this is the proper time, I would ask leave to bring up the motion I made yesterday, which the hon. member for North Toronto suggested should be left over for consideration until to-day.


Mr. FOSTER.: I understand that the committee from which the report is made has between 70 and 80 members. That is a pretty large committee, and it seems as if we shall scarcely get from that committee such an authoritative revision and recommendation on matters concerning banking and commerce, as shall have force in this House, if we now reduce its quorum to 15. This would make it possible to get measures through the committee by drumming up a very few members, whose recommendation might not be at all representative of the majority of the committee and would hardly be called authoritative for this House. I would be very sorry to see the quorum of the committee reduced to 15. Possibly this talk 'and warning may have the effect of advertising members of that committee that they should be a little more careful in attending to their duties. I shall take that as a warning and advertisement to myself. The whole trouble arises, as I have said before, and as the Prime Minister has agreed, from having too large committees, so that when three or four are meeting on the same day, it is impossible for the members to attend properly to their duties on any one of them. Maybe this little discussion, and this statement of what seems to be coming if that committee does not attend to a greater extent to its duties, will be sufficient to bring about the desired end, namely, that it shall be a working committee. Nobody desires that it should be made any smaller than is absolutely necessary to gain the ends of revision and recommendation to this House.


Henry Horton Miller: I think the hon. gentleman is quite right in saying that the membership of the committee is from 70 to 80. However, when only 15 members of the committee are in attendance, it does not necessarily mean that 55 or 65 are neglecting their duties.


George Eulas Foster: I will set the hon. gentleman and myself right by saying that the clerk informs me that there are 134 members of that committee. This reduces the idea
of making 15 a quorum for such a committee pretty well to an absurdity.


Henry Horton Miller: It does not necessarily mean that all the members who are not present are neglecting their duties, because, as a matter of fact, every member of the Banking and Commerce Committee is also a member of at least one other committee, and many of them members of two or three other committees. Several of these committees meet at the same time. Yesterday there were meetings of the Committees on Agriculture, Banking and Commerce, Public Accounts, and Printing, and many of the 130 members of the Banking and Commerce Committee were actually in attendance on these other committees. It would be very desirable if we could get every member of the Banking and Commerce Committee to attend and take an interest in the business of that committee. The hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) said just now that he would take this discussion as a warning to himself that he ought to be more constant in attendance on this committee. If so, that would bring about a very good result because the hon. gentleman is a member of this committee, and not very constant in his attendance. In saying this I am not implying that he is in any way neglecting his duties because no doubt, when not present at the meetings of this committee, he is doing possibly better work in connection with his public duties elsewhere. But that is also the position of many other members of the committee. The whole matter was carefully discussed in the committee on Wednesday morning, and both sides were unanimous in the opinion that the quorum ought to be reduced. Under present conditions, and that no doubt applies to many other committees, if business is to be proceeded with at all the chairman has to see a quorum when really there is none. Rather than have the committee do business in that irregular way, it would be better to have the quorum reduced.


Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).: I went to the trouble this afternoon to secure a copy of the printed list of committees in order to ascertain whether I was a member of this Banking and Commerce Committee, and I did so because I have never yet this session received a notice to attend any of its meetings, and it is quite possible there may be other members who have likewise not been notified.


An hon. MEMBER.: Here is one.


Morley Currie: I take great care to note my committees in my diary. The night before last I had only two and yesterday two, and was quite surprised to read in the evening papers that there was a meeting of this Banking and Commerce Committee. Before any action be taken, we should have this matter referred back to

the committee, and have a full meeting. What is the use of holding'hole and corner meetings, at which only some of the members are present, and then passing resolutions. No doubt it is very easy not to have a quorum if the secretary neglects to notify the members of a committee to attend the meeting, and the fact that all the members of this committee were not notified to attend ought to induce the hon. member to withdraw his resolution for the present.


Mr. SPROULE.: During the discussion which was held at the last meeting of this committee, it was quite apparent that there was great difficulty in getting a quorum. No doubt that is partly due to all the members not being notified, but 1 think the chief trouble is the number of committees which hold meetings on the same day. Greater care should be taken not to have so many committees meet on the same day. When the meeting of the Banking and Commerce Committee took place, there were three other committees being held and members could not attend them all, so that necessarily there would be a slim attendance at some of these. But because of the length of time taken in waiting to get a quorum, the suggestion was made to reduce the quorum. I think, in the first place, that the committee is entirely too large. The quorum would seem to be a small one compared with the size of the committee, but it is a reduction from 21 to 15, and it seems to me that if we reduce the quorum at all 15 is a fair number. My experience of late years is that the business is done br a. few members, perhaps from 10 to 25. There may be a quorum at the start, but members leave and even if there be then no quorum, the business still goes on.
One of two things ought to be done. Either an arrangement should be made not to have so many committees called for the same day or the size of each committee should be reduced.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: Everybody will agree that the evil is that the committees are altogether too large. That matter was discussed by my hon. friend opposite and myself when we were forming the committees this year, but we did not think it advisable to make any alteration in the number during the present parliament, but to wait until the new parliament and then endeavour to reduce the committees to a practical number.


Mr. HENDERSON.: I belieye that io a certain extent I am responsible for the motion to reduce the number from 21 to 15. The reason for this motion was that if the number was reduced we could do business legally and regularly and not do, as at present, the work with a lesser num-Mr. CURRIE (Simcoe).
her than is required by the rules of the House. I may say it is no unusual thing to find a small meeting of the Banning and Commerce Committee. I do not understand that every member who is on the list is expected to be present, but the idea of putting a large number on the committee is-to give an opportunity of attending to any member who has any special interest in any matter that comes before it, and if there is nothing beforp the committe in which he is specially interested he is not called upon to attend. There is a good deal in what the chairman says, that the business of that committee from year to year is conducted by a few members, and I am not aware that the business is not just as well done as if a hundred were present. I remember on one occasion-I have not mentioned it before, and I mention it now to show how difficult it is to get business through that committee-on one occasion a good many years ago only two members of the committee turned up, the chairman even was absent, and a matter of some importance, at least requiring immediate attention, was to come up. I was moved to the chair by the other member, the other member made the motion, I put it, the clerk drew up the report, the report was adopted and presented, and I never heard that what was done on that occasion by two members was not just as well done as if it had been done by the whole quorum. However, I promised to myself that I would never repeat that. Perhaps it was not the proper thing to do, and I have no desire to repeat it. But I do not think members of that committee are all expected to attend a meeting, when there are three or four committees sitting, but it gives tne members of the House an opportunity, when there is anything special before the committee, of going there and expressing their opinion, and voting on the question. The Same thing applies to the Committee on Railways and Canals that has, I think, 160 or 180 members. You never find them all there, perhaps not much more than half of them. Yet we have an opportunity, if a special circumstance calls for it, to be present. I do not object to putting the number back to 21 again if the members will only attend the committee. But let us do it in a legal way, instead of doing business without a quorum.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I am a member of that committee, and I did not receive a notice of this meeting at which I understand this resolution was passed. I think at a meeting where you are proposing to change the number, we should all have an opportunity of being present and discussing it. This year especially, when tne Bank Act is coming up, perhaps one of the most important Acts that has ever

been before that committee, it is hardly fair that the members of that committee should be reduced just at this time. 1 think the Prime Minister should ask the mover of this resolution to let it stand, m order that we may have an opportunity of discussing it at a fuller meeting of the committee. I do not agree that the numbers should be reduced. We are all interested in everything that is going on in that committee, and in knowing what is going on. I think, therefore, that there should be no hesitation in withdrawing this resolution, or letting it stand until we have another meeting of the committee, where we can thrash the question out, and if a majority agrees that the number should be reduced, I am willing to fall in line.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: As a member of the Committee on Banking and Commerce, I want to remind the chairman that he is in error when he said there are three or four committee meetings at the same time. The Banking and Commerce Committee is generally called, and was called, at 10.30; the other committees meeting on the same day were not called until 11 o'clock, and there was plenty of time for the members of this committee to meet at 10.30, and put in half an hour's work before they went to the other committees. If we cannot get a quorum at 10.30, it is not on account of other committees meeting at the same time. I think the quorum is quite small enough at 21 on an important committee like this.


Mr. NESBITT.: Let me point out that the pioposition is only to reduce the number of the quorum, because some times we have to wait a long while for a quorum to appear The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. laylor) said the meeting was called at 10.30 and though we waited till 11, sometimes then we did not have a quorum. That is why the suggestion was made to reduce the quorum. I want to point out that we do not propose to reduce the number of the committee at all, but only to reduce the quorum so that we can go on with the business instead ^ of sitting there and waiting all the morning for a quorum to turn up.


David Henderson: I would suggest that the chairman withdraw the motion and let it come again before the committee.


Henry Horton Miller: I have no objection to withdrawing the motion. I may say that I had no idea that every member of the committee had not received a notice. The clerk of that committee is usually very careful. I shall speak about that, and see that every member does get a notice of the future meetings.
Motion withdrawn.



FIRST READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 101) respecting the Huron and Ontario Railway Company.-Mr. Sealey.
Bill (No. 102) to incorporate the Imperial Traction Company.-Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
(The questions answered orally are indicated toy an asterisk.)

Mr. LENNOX:: 1.	In those cases in which agreement was come to last autumn between Mr. Kelliher and Mr. Gordon as to over break on the eastern, division of the Transcontinental railway, what quantities of material, and of what class, and what sums of money were taken from or added to the progress estimates?
2.	In the case where measurements had to be made, have they been made, and with what result ?


Mr. GRAHAM.: I would ask my hon. friend to make a motion for a return. I am endeavouring to get the information as rapidly as possible.


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


EASTERN DIVISION OF NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY-TOTAL COST.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. BORDEN (Halifax):
What was the total cost up to the 31st day of December, 1910, of the eastern division of the National Transcontinental railway?
George Perry Graham: The returns are not all in.


REDUCED RAILWAY RATES FOR CLERGY.
Mr. JAMESON:: 1.	Is the government aware of any statute or railway regulation, now or formerly in force, under which the clergy of Canada, or any of them, are or were entitled to receive transportation from the Canadian railways, or any of them, at less than the regular tariff rates?
2.	If so, when was such statute or regulation passed or made, is it now in force, what railway companies does it affect, and what is the extent of its application?


George Perry Graham: There is no statute to this effect. But the state owned railways of Canada do now, and have for years, * granted half fare to any clergyman of any denomination making a request for it.

DRUDGE 'NORTHUMBERLAND/


Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	Wliat is the name, place of residence and occupation on ship, of each member of the crew, officers and men, of the dredge ' Northumberland '?
2.	What members of the crew are at present on wages on the dredge?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	U. H. Lyons, Master; E. Nickerson, Mate; J. A. Ledingham, Chief Engineer; W. Curry, Second Engineer; C. Hannon, Operator; G. Jollimore, Assistant Operator;
A.	McDonald, Assistant Operator; H. McKinnon, Boatswain; U. Rafuse, Cook; W. Abbott, Steward; W. Hopkins, Oiler; W. Oaks, Oiler; E. Marden, Oiler; R. Bone, Fireman; H. Campbell, Fireman; .T. Brownrigg, Fireman; D. MeCrie, Fireman;
B.	Abbott, Night Watch; A. Rafuse, Deck Hand; T. Wood, Deck Hand; J. Montague, Deck Hand; G. Little, Deck Hand; H. Mills, Deck Hand; J. Dalton, Deck Hand;
J.	Hansford, Deck Hand; G. Chambers, Deck Hand.
The department does not keep a record of the changes in residence of the men employed on the dredges, and I am unable to answer that part of the question which asks for the places of residences (which, 1 assume, means the present places of residence) of the crew, officers and men.
2.	Watchmen.


NATIONAL TRANSCONTINENTAL RAILWAY AND TEMISKAMING AND NORTHERN ONTARIO RAILWAY.
Mr. MACDONELL:: 1.	Has the government, or the National Transcontinental Railway Commission, entered into any agreement or working arrangement of any kind with the province of Ontario, or the commission operating the Temis-kaming and Northern Ontario Railway Company, regarding the securing of running rights, or right of way, for the National Transcontinental railway over the lines of the Toronto and Northern Ontario, between Cochrane and North Bay, or Scotia Junction, or any other point? If so, what are the particulars of the transaction?
2.	Is it the intention of the government, or the commission operating the National Transcontinental railway, to discontinue the construction of this railway, in whole or in part, either permanently or temporarily, east of Cochrane, being the point of junction between the Toronto and Northern Ontario railway, and the National Transcontinental railway?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	No.
2.	No.


George Perry Graham: 


IMMIGRATION BONUSES.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario):: 1.	Did three Swiss girls named Wilhelmina Kuhner, Antoinette Chatelaine and Ida Brant, arrive as immigrants in Canada in August, 1910?
2.	If so, were any bonuses paid to any steamship company or to any booking agent for bringing them into Canada as domestics?
3.	If so, to whom was the bonus paid and when?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to 2.	[DOT]


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	What was the total amount paid in commissions to immigration agents and booking agents for immigrants sent to Canada, during the last fiscal year?
2.	Are commissions paid on the approval of report showing the number of tickets issued, statements showing number of immigrants sent to Canada, or is the commission retained until the immigrant has been accepted to the citizenship of Canada?


Mr. OLIVER:: 1.	$52,261.
2.	Commissions are paid on proof of arrival of the immigrants in Canada.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-
Mr. TURCOTTE (Nicolet):: 1.	Did the Department of Railways and Canals call for tenders for the construction of a station at Ste. Perpetue in 1896?
2.	If so, did Louis Gilbert tender for that work, and what was the amount of his tender ?
3.	Did the department decide to accept such a tender, or did they decide to do the work by day labour?
4.	If they decided to do the work by day labour, what was the cost of such work?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, $1,397.
3.	No. All tenders were considered too high and it was decided to have the work done by day labour.
4.	The cost of the work by day labour was $898.94.


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	Who are the present members of the Quebec Harbour Commission?
2.	When were these last appointments made?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1 ancl 2-	Appointed.


Jean Baptiste Laliberte ....: Oct.	3,	1896


Wm.   M@: Maepherson	Oct.	3'	1896Roger Larue	Jan.	19'	1907J. S. Thom	Aug.	31,	1907George Tanguay	June	29,	1910Lome 0. Webster	Aug.	1910Wm. Molson Dobell	Aug.	1910Cleophas Auger	Meh.	16,	1909G. A. Vaudry	Aug.	1,	1910


COLD STORAGE STATIONS.
Mr. PAQUET:: What amount has been paid for cold storage depots during the fiscal years 1907-8, 1908-9 and 1909-10?


Mr. FISHER:: 1907-	8	
$18,824.271908-	9	
36,709.741909-	10	
24,085.85


EXHIBITION GRANTS.
Mr. PAQUET:: 1.	What exhibitions, local oz* otheiuvise, have been subsidized in our country since the 1st January, 1908, to the 1st Jazzuary, 1911?
2.	What was the amount of each of these subsidies?
3.	What exhibitions have been subsidized outside of Canada since the 1st January, 1908, to the 1st January, 1911, and what was the amount of each of these subsidies?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: 1 and 2. To effect the holding of Dominion exhibitions, the following subsidies' have been given: Toronto, Ont., 1903; Winnipeg, Man., 1904; New Westminster, B.C., 1905; Halifax, N.S., 1906; Sherbrooke, Que., H07; Calgary, Alta., 1908; St. John, N.B., 1910, $50,000 each.
The government has undertaken to make a similar grant of $50,000 to the Regina, Sask., exhibition, 1911.
In addition, a grant of $10,000 was made to the Prince Edward Island exhibition in each of the years 1906 and 1910.
3.	No exhibitions outside of Canada have been subsidized. The Dominion has participated in the following foreign exhibitions: London, 1908; Seattle, 1909; Brussels, 1910.


INTERCOLONIAL, RAILWAY-ICE CONTRACTS.
Mr. MONK:: 1.	Who obtained the contract last year for supplying ice to the Intercolonial at the stations of Riviere du Loirp and Ste. Flavie?
2.	At how much per ton did the contractor engage to furnish the ice for the two stations in question in the terms of his tender?
3.	How much a ton was he paid during the season in question for the ice at the two stations above mentioned?
4.	Who was the lowest tenderer in each
case?
5.	Did Mr. Polycarpe Ouellet, of Riviere du Loup, tender for the ice at each of these stations, and what was his price per ton of ice in each case?


Mr. GRAHAM:: 1.	Polycarpe Ouellet, of Riviere du Loup, obtained the contract for the ice required at Riviere du Loup and Ste. Flavie during 1910.
2.	(a) Riviere du Loup, at 74 cents per
ton, packed in ice house, (b) Ste. Flavie, at 75J cents per ton, packed in ice house; the railway transporting the ice and men free of charge from Riviere du Loup to Ste. Flavie.	[DOT]
3.	74 cents for that supplied for Riviere du Loup, and 75i cents for Ste. Flavie.
4.	Polycarpe Ouellet.
5.	Answered by Nos. 1 and 2.
STEAMER 'ALVA/


Mr. REID (Grenville):: 1.	Was the price paid Philip & Son, Limited, for steamer 'Alva/ viz., $22,630 for said steamer delivered at Halifax?
2.	If not, what did it cost the government to bring said steamer from England to Halifax?
3.	What would be the customs duties on said steamer?
4.	Have any expenses or charges been paid on said steamer since arrival at Halifax?


Mr. FISHER:: 1.	Yes. The contract price included delivery at Halifax.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	No duties.
4.	No, but the sum of $600 on account of the purchase price has been paid since the arrival of the steamer at Halifax.


TESTIMONIALS TO MINISTERS.
Mr. BOYCE.: Before the orders of the day are called, I desire to state my position with regard to a motion to adjourn the House in order to discuss an important public matter, of which I gave notice on Monday afternoon. At the personal request of the Prime Minister, and in view of the very important statement by the Minister of Finance, for which the House is waiting to-day, I would postpone the discussion of this motion if the Prime Minister will now undertake to move the House into Committee of Supply at an early hour on Tuesday for the purpose of enabling this matter, of which I have given notice, to be discussed; otherwise I will proceed now.


Wilfrid Laurier: We had intended to move the House into Committee of Supply on Tuesday next, but I understand there are some friends of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Boyce) who wish to move amendments. Perhaps he .could agree with his friends to be allowed to have precedence. The House will go into Committee of Supply on Tuesday.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: The right hon. gentleman, of course, understands the position of matters. I gave notice on Monday that at the opening of the House to-day I would move to adjourn the House, and in view of the absence of the Minister of Finance then, who I thought it was desirable should be present, I stated I would make that motion on the first occasion on which the Finance Minister would be in his seat. That is the way the matter stands at present. I am quite willing to give place to the discussion set for this afternoon if the Prime Minister accepts my suggestion.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. member has given notice that he will move the adjournment of the House, and he can do that any day. If my hon. friend prefers to make his motion now instead of as an amendment to go into Committee of Supply, there is no objection at all so far as we on this side of the House are concerned.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
George Eulas Foster: On the 7th of December, 1910, the House ordered a return calling for all petitions, memorials, resolutions, from individuals, boards of trade and other bodies and corporations favouring or asking for a treaty of reciprocity with the United States; also of all similar documents protesting against or unfavourable to the same, and a copy of all correspondence had with the government or any member thereof concerning reciprocity with the United States since January 1st, 1910. This return was brought down on the 9th of January last, hut as I pointed out then, and once or twice since, it only deals with one branch of the order. There is nothing in the return brought down except a number of resolutions and documents asking for reciprocity; there is no correspondence at all between any member of the government and any body outside, and there are none of the resolutions or documents which favoured reciprocity. The return has not been supplemented, and we are perhaps just now on the eve of a debate, and the information is not before the House, as it ought to be.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know what correspondence my hon. friend Mr. BOYCE.
can allude to. I was under the impression that the whole of the correspondence had been brought down. If there has been any exchange of correspondence between some members of the government and other persons, so far as I am concerned, I will ask that it be prepared and brought down.


RECIPROCITY WITH AUSTRALIA.
Mr. AMES.: Now that the Minister of Customs is in his place, I would like to ask him to facilitate the speedy bringing down of the return asked for regarding reciprocal trade arrangements with Australia. I want to discuss that matter in the near future.


Mr. PATERSON.: I will be pleased to do so.


RECIPROCITY TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
The Honourable W.   S.@: FIELDING (Minister of Finance) moved that the House go into Committee of Ways 'and Means. He said: Mr. Speaker, the action of this government in consenting to reopen negotiations with the government of the United States with a view to bringing about if possible a satisfactory reciprocal trade arrangement, has been very severely criticised in many quarters. From that fact we may properly infer that there must be some people in this Dominion of Canada who hold the opinion that the commercial policy of the 92,000,000 people who live to the south of us is of no concern to the inhabitants of this Dominion. No other conviction could justify the action of those who have objected to the opening of negotiations. One may easily understand, Sir, that there would be room for difference of opinion as to the merits of any arrangements into which it might be proposed to enter, but that there should be opposition to the reopening of negotiations in response to the friendly approach of the United 'States government seems to us, in the light of history, to be very strange indeed. Sir, for us, for this government, for this parliament, for this Dominion, to set itself against a discussion of the question of the trade relations between our country and the neighbouring republic would be to emphatically reverse the historic policy of the Dominion from the first day of confederation down to the present time, and not only the policy of the Dominion but the pre-confederation policy of every province out of which the Dominion was subsequently formed. Whether we desire it or not, Sir, the conditions of our two countries, lying side

by side, must always make us of much interest one to the other.
The 92,000,000 people to the south are willing to acknowledge that they are interested in the commercial policy of Canada, and we representing 8,000,000 people are not ashamed to confess that we have the deepest concern in the policy which those people may adopt in relation to their commerce with the world at large. It is because we have the feeling that there is a mutual interest, that we have entered upon the negotiations as to which it is my privilege norw to address you.
It ought not to ibe necessary to speak of this historic policy to which I have referred, but in view of the very strong action that has been taken iby many gentlemen adverse to reciprocity it will he necessary that I shall for a few moments recall some of the main facts of the history of this matter. I am persuaded, and my colleagues are persuaded, that many of those who have formed a hasty judgment against reciprocity and against' reciprocity negotiations have not given their deliberate judgment, and now that the time has come that we are able to disclose the results of our negotiations, we are most hopeful, Sir, that not only will the negotiations themselves be approved but that the result of these negotiations will be -approved, not only by the country at large but by a great number of the gentlemen who have hitherto taken up that adverse position. Not to go back any further than a time within the memory of those who are sitting within the sound of my voice, we have to recall the reciprocity treaty of 1854, which was a treaty covering a wide range of natural products. At the time that treaty was arranged for, between the then provinces of British North America and the United States, it naturally received some criticism. No measure of magnitude can at any time be presented to a deliberate assembly or to a great people without some kind of criticism being found. But, I think I am correct in stating that after that treaty had been in operation for some years it was recognized as being in the highest degree beneficial to the provinces of British North America, and as we thought beneficial also to the United States. Be that as it may, when the time came for the abrogation of that treaty in 1866, there was grave anxiety on the'part of the people of British North America as to the effect off that abrogation. Our trade interests, it was thought then, were so much dependent upon the American market that the abrogation of the treaty was naturally a cause of much alarm. Every public man in the provinces as they then were, and every public man of responsible position from that day to this in the Dominion
of Canada, has realized the necessity of trying to cultivate good trade relations with the United States. From 1854 to 1866 the treaty was in operation. That brought us down to the very eve of confederation. Confederation dates from 1867, and one of the arguments very frequently used in support of the union movement was that in view of the abrogation of the treaty with the United States it was desirable that the provinces should be united in order that they might be stronger in their efforts to bring about a readjustment of our commercial relations and the procuring of a new treaty.
So, from the beginning of confederation this desire for reciprocity became the established policy of the country. It was the established policy, not of one political party, but it was the policy of all political parties that have had to do with the government of Canada. In 1868, in the first year of confederation, there was enacted in the tariff of that year a standing offer of reciprocity to the United States. The men of that day who controlled the government of Canada felt that as one of their first steps they must make this declaration that they desired to renew some reciprocal arrangement with the people of the. United States. Accordingly, there was carried into the tariff of 1868, the first tariff after confederation, that standing offer of reciprocity to the United States. In 1869 Sir John Rose, then, if I mistake not, occupying the position which I now have the honour to fill, was sent to the United States as a delegate from the Canadian government to endeavour to bring about reciprocity. In 1870, in the tariff legislation of that time, the standing offer was again inserted. It was changed somewhat in form, but it was renewed in principle and in substance. In 1871 Sir John Macdonald was concerned in the negotiation of what w'as then called the treaty of Washington, and he endeavoured to bring about commercial reciprocity, as well as settle the other matters that were afterwards dealt with in the treaty, but he was, as his predecessors had been, unsuccessful in establishing better commercial relations. In 1873 a change of government took place, the government of Hon. Alexander Mackenzie came into power, and Mr. Mackenzie again took up the question of reciprocity. So that, in the days of the Liberal government and in the days of the Conservative government this desire for reciprocitv has; at all times been mtmo-The Mackenzie government dispatched Senator George Brown, of Toronto, to Washington for the purpose of negotiating a treaty, and a treaty was prepared at that time, but the United States failed to ratify it. In 1878, in the early days of what our friends opposite call the .National

Policy, one of the strongest: arguments which they used in many quarters was that the National Policy should be adopted as a means of forcing the Americans to give us a new reciprocity treaty. In their first tariff, the so-called National Policy, adopted in 1879, a standing offer was made and the terms in which it was made were sufficiently interesting in view of what has now been accomplished to justify me in taking the time of the House for a moment by reading them. In section 6 of the Tariff Act of 1879 there is this standing offer:-
Any or all of the following articles, that is to say: animals of all kinds, green fruit, hay, straw, bran, seeds of all kinds, vegetables (including potatoes and other roots), plants, trees and shrubs, coal and coke, salt, hops, wheat, peas and heans, barley, rye, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat and all other grain, flour of wheat and flour of rye, Indian meal and oatmeal, and floor of meal of any other grain, butter, cheese, fish (salted or smoked), lard, tallow, meats (fresh, salted or smoked) and lumber, may be imported into Canada free of duty, or at a less rate of duty than is provided by this Act, upon proclamation of the Governor in Council, which may be issued whenever it appears to his satisfaction that similar articles. from Canada may be imported into the United States free of duty, or at a rate of duty not exceeding that payable on the same under such proclamation when imported into Canada.
So you will see, Sir, that our Conservative friends, upon coming back to power in 1878-9, deemed it necessary as one of their first steps that they should proclaim to the world they desire to re-establish reciprocal trade relations with the United States. That principle was continued in their tariff from year to year with some change of form, but not in principle, so that down to the day when the Conservative party retired from office in 1896 this desire to obtain reciprocity with the United States was to be found upon the statute-book, in budget speeches and in everything wherein they proclaimed the commercial policy of Canada.
Now, we turn to the change of administration in 1906. In the Liberal platform of 1893, reciprocity occupied a prominent part and soon after this government came into power-indeed, if my memory is correct, even before parliament assembled-two members of the government were sent to Washington with the view of ascertaining what might be done in the way of reciprocal treaty arrangements. They did not find the situation favourable and they came back to their colleagues and reported that they were not able to accomplish anything. There is one incident in this history that I had forgotten that is of importance, and that is that in the year 1891 the dissolution of parlia-Mr. FIELDING.
ment was ordered by the Conservative government of the day upon the ground that they regarded the reciprocity question as so important that they required a mandate from the people of the Dominion to enable them to proceed to Washington and deal with that question. The Liberal party of the day also was in favour of reciprocity. Both parties declared for reciprocity at that time and the only question was as to which one could get the largest degree of reciprocity. So, if we follow it from day to day and from year to year, taking the history of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, the early years of confederation, the period in connection with the national policy and the period since the change in administration, down to the joint high commission of 1898-9, we find that throughout all these years, whatever difference theTe may have been amongst the public men of our country on other subjects, there was no difference of opinion as to the great importance (ind desirability of re-establishing reciprocal trade relations with the United States of America.
Now, in view of the history which I have so hurriedly presented to you, and with which many hon. gentlemen in the House are more intimately acquainted than I am, would it not have been a strange proceeding, if this government had refused to entertain the friendly approaches of the President of the United States, and to join in a conference to see whether or not something could be brought about in the way of reciprocity? That was the position in which we found ourselves and I confess it was with much surprise that we found the many manifestions of opposition. Again I say I am presuaded that the gentlemen who on the public platform or in the press took such strong ground against our action, did not give us the benefit of their well considered judgment. I am going to appeal to them to revise that judgment, to give a fair consideration to. the project we are about to submit to them, and in all sincerity I say I am most hopeful indeed that what we have to propose will not he regarded as a matter of party contest, but as something which if it can be brought about by the joint action of this parliament and the Congress of the United States, will work out for the good of the Dominion and we trust for the good of the United States as well.
These negotiations, Sir, may be said to have commenced nearly a year ago. They took at first the shape of a communication from the Secretary of State of the United States to The Right Hon. Mr. Bryce, His Majesty's ambassador at Washington. The matter being one purely of a Canadian character, Mr. Bryce, like the very sensible ambassador he is, turned it over to the government of Canada for consideration and

from that time down to the present these negotiations have been conducted directly between ministers of the government at Ottawa and the Secretary of State or the officers of the Department of State at Washington. I wish to say in that connection that at every stage of the matter we have been favoured with the cordial sympathy and co-operation of the distinguished ambassador at Washington, and that on many occasions we found his co-operation and sympathy and advice o'f the utmost value to us. I desire in this public way to acknowledge the service he has rendered to Canada in his capacity as ambassador for His Majesty.
The United States tariff was revised a year or two ago, and the world received what is known as the Payne-Aldrich tariff. That tariff brought out an embarrassing situation between the United States and some countries, particularly between the United States and Canada. The Payne-Aldrich tariff provided that what was called the maximum tariff, a very high tariff, should be imposed on the products of all countries to which that tariff is applied. It was said in the course of the discussions arising out of our action in connection with that - matter that Mr. Taft, the president, would never have put the maximum tariff on Canada. That has been very frequently said. Now if the situation had really been as it seemed to be in the minds of the gentlemen who made that criticism, I should have been disposed to agree with them. I will frankly say that I do not think Mr. Taft ever desired to impose the maximum tariff upon the products of Canada. The misfortune was that Congress had imposed the tariff. It was not a question of Mr. Taft doing it. Congress had put that tariff on and declared that on and after a given date the products of all countries not exempted by special action of the president should become subject to the maximum tariff. The maximum tariff existed and was coming into operation in a few days. It was not a question of Mr. Taft putting it on, but of Mr. Taft being induced to take it off, as he had the power to do. The President of the United States, as one evidence of his sincere desire to avoid trouble with Canada on that question, did us the honour of inviting a member of this government to proceed to Albany to meet him and discuss the matter. He came a long way from his capital and not very far from our own and was pleased to discuss the question there with a minister of the Canadian government. My colleagues did me the honouT of sending me on that mission. I have said before and repeat that at my first interview with that distinguished statesman, the President of the United States, I became satisfied that he was animated by the warmest desire to make a fair
and just and friendly arrangement with Canada. As I have already said, it was not a question of putting on the maximum tariff, it was a question of taking it off, and I found that the President of the United States was willing to take it off if we could give him some decent excuse to do so under the terms of the American tariff law. We made a few changes, a few concessions of no earthly importance, so small and trifling that I am sure hardly any of us in the House could remember to-day what they were. But they served the purpose; they were enough to give Mr. Taft the reason and excuse he desired and accordingly he issued his proclamation that Canada should not be placed under the disadvantage of the maximum tariff, which if applied would undoubtedly have done harm on both sides, most certainly to large business interests in Canada. Out of the negotiations at that time have sprung the larger negotiations of a more recent date. We were invited by the President and the Secretary of State, Mr. Knox, to take up the greater question of a reciprocal trade arrangement. The arrangements we made nearly a year ago, last March, were of such a small and trifling character that nobody could have regarded them as a final adjustment of our tariff question and we readily responded to the suggestion of the President that we should meet him and his cabinet ministers for the consideration of the question along broader lines.


Mr.   POSTER@: Was it in any way one of the conditions on which President Taft consented to excuse Canada and lift_ her out of the Tather embarrassing condition, that in addition to the concessions which we gave in a tariff sense, there should be an undertaking, implied or expressed, that that action should be followed by negotiations for a trade treaty ?


Mr. FIELDING.: As a matter of condition, no. There was no question, understanding, arrangement, condition or suggestion as between Mr. Taft and the Canadian government that is not set forth in the correspondence which has (been in the possession of the House for the last ten months. That correspondence clearly shows that Mr. Taft expressed an earnest desire to have a discussion on broader lines and that on behalf of our colleagues we agreed that that discussion should take place; but it was not a condition of Mr. Taft taking any action at that moment; it was a matter which we jointly desired, which he had suggested, and which we were very happy to agree to.
I have. Sir, referred thus to the earlier stages of these negotiations, and brought the' story down to a very recent date. I have pointed out that the desire for reci-

procity was not a party matter, that it was universal, and we felt, as we had a right to feel, that we were bound to * take advantage of any opportunity that offered to bring about that more desirable arrangement of trade between the United States and Canada for which this country had been seeking for the last half century. That was the position in which we found ourselves. If -we thought the moment was favourable, if in view of that history which I have so briefly referred to, we thought the psychological moment had come when we could deal with the United States in a more favourable manner, if we thought they had repented, if I may use the expression, of the error of their ways, that they had seen they could not afford to treat Canada in the way they had been treating her in bygone years, if they had reached that happy frame of mind, was it our duty to refuse to meet them? Was it not our duty to meet them and say: We are glad, brethern, you think better of the situation, we are willing to sit down and discuss this matter in a fair and generous spirit?
, We have, then, proceeded along these lines, and we have conducted negotiations first at Ottawa and afterwards at Washington, covering the whole question of trade relations. We have now been able to come to an understanding, and if wc are able to bring about some of the good results which this country has been seeking for many years, I earnestly hope that the action will be one in which all parties in this House and in this country will be able to join and say, that that is for the good of Canada and for the good of the. United States as well. Let me proceed to tell you, first in a summary way [DOT]and afterwards in detail, exactly what the arrangement is.
In the first place, I am glad to be able to tell the House that at a very early stage in our negotiations, several months ago indeed, we^ informed the representatives of the United States government that whije we desired to make a friendly reciprocal arrangement, while we were most anxious to broaden our trade conditions and to establish and continue friendly relations with them, we believed that could be now brought about as well by mutual legislation, as by the more definite form of a treaty; and therefore we informed them that while we were prepared tp proceed with the negotiations and to make the arrangement as broad and generous as we could, it must be understood that we preferred the form of concurrent legislation, and that it was not our purpose to bind the Dominion of Canada or the United States in the way of a treaty.


William Stevens Fielding: 


George Eulas Foster: Can the minister give about the date at which that information was sent to Washington ?


William Stevens Fielding: It was never sent to Washington Iby any communication. It occurred in the personal communications between the representatives of the government and those of the United States.


George Eulas Foster: The date of that ?


William Stevens Fielding: It occurred in the city of Ottawa, at the time the delegates from the United States were here. I cannot give my hon. friend the exact date. Intimation was given that while we were anxious to have an arrangement, we preferred that there should be no treaty, and we thought we could show that the arrangement could be made useful and effective without the formal binding of a treaty. It will, therefore, be found, in the document which I shall read presently, that we have made no binding arrangement-that if this arrangement which I shall present to you, commends itself to your judgment, is found to be advantageous. it will continue, but if on reasonable trial, it is found in any way to be unfavourable to the Dominion of Canada, the government and the parliament of the day, are absolutely free at any time to change the arrangement, and nobodv will have any right to complain.
The next point is that we have arranged that there shall be a large free list. We have agreed upon a schedule containing a large number of articles which are to be reciprocally free. These are chiefly what are called natural products, though there are some things in them which would hardly be classified in that way. Some of these things are already free in Canada, but have been subject to duty in the United States. We have been able to arrange that the United States shall take off the duty, and, therefore, instead of having what some of our hon, friends have sometimes called a lop-sided free trade, there will be real free trade in this matter, and the thing that is free in Canada shall also be free in the United States.
In another schedule we have provided a lather numerous list of items on which there shall be a common rate of duty in both countries. A very common criticism on the part of gentlemen who have not viewed this matter as favourably as we would have wished, has been: If the United States want to make a tariff arrangement with you, let them come down to your rates of duty. It seemed to be taken for granted that that was what the United States would not do. But that is exactly wha't we asked them to do, and what they have agreed to do, respecting a large nuni-

ber of articles. They have not only come down to our rates, but in some cases they have come below them, and in those cases, in order to reach that common rate, we have had to make reductions. But as our tariff is a moderate one, while theirs, in the main, is a high tariff, the result has been that, in order to arrive at a common rate, we have had to make only moderate reductions, while they, in many cases, have had to make quite large reductions. There are a few exceptions to this general rule. We found a few cases with which we desired to deal, but with respect to which we were not able to agree upon a common rate. In some instances it was not so much the rate itself as the classification and the phraseology. Dealing with these cases as exceptions, we have provided one schedule of articles on which the United States impose the rates of duties therein mentioned on the products _ of Canada, and another schedule of articles on which Canada imposes the rates of duties therein mentioned on the products of the United States. The idea of reciprocity is in the arrangement, but it does not require both countries to adopt the same rate or the same classification. These two schedules, however, will be found to contain not many items.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: If there is nothing in the nature of a treaty, how is this arrangement to be carried out?


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend will see as I proceed. It is not a binding treaty in any shape or form. The arrangement rests on mutual faith, mutual good-will, mutual conviction that the thing is for the benefit of the two countries.
Before dealing with the schedules in detail, I want to givp an illustration of how we have been able to reach a common ground. For example, take the article of wheat. At present wheat is dutiable in the United States at 25 cents a bushel and in Canada at 12 cents a bushel. We make wheat free in both countries. The reduction in Canada is 12 cents a bushel, whereas the United States reduction is 25 cents a bushel. I give that as an illustration of the fact that the tariff of the United States being much higher than ours, in order to meet a common rate they have had to make very much larger reductions than we have.


Mr. OWEN.: What will be the duty on our wheat going into the United States?


William Stevens Fielding: The duty on our wheat going into the United States will be nothing. As another illustration, take the article of barley. It was a large crop in Ontario some years ago, and when the American tariff increased the duty on barley it 78
was regarded by Canadian farmers as a rather severe piece of legislation. Barley is now made free. Canada's reduction is 15 cents per bushel and the United States reduction is 30 cents per bushel.
Take another illustration, an item of importance to many districts in this country, the item of .potatoes. Potatoes are now made free. Canada's reduction is 20 cents per bushel and the United States 25 cents.
Oats are made free. Canada's reduction is 10 cents per bushel, the United States 15 cents per bushel.
Flour is now to be dutiable at the common rate of 50 cents per 'barrel ; Canada's reduction is 10 cents per barrel ; the United States reduction is about equal to 70 cents per barrel
Rough sawn lumber is made free. It was already free in Canada but in the United States, even under the Jfayne-Aldrich tariff, there was a duty of $1.25 per 1,000 feet. That duty is removed, and rough sawn lumber may be exported free into the United States by the manufacturers of the Dominion.
In the discussion of tariff items in this House in toy-gone years, there were two items which were commonly bracketed together, strange as it may appear. I refer to coal and flour. In the early days of the discussion of the duties on these articles, it was argued with much force that the coal duty was rather a burden on the people of Ontario, and that the flour duty imposed a burden on the people of the lower provinces, and that, on the principle of give and take, the people of the two sections should be willing to have these two duties imposed, each section profiting by that policy. I need not now go into the discussions which took place at that time. We are now proposing to-bracket them together. We are making a small reduction in the duty of flour of 10 cents per barrel, and a small reduction in the duty of cord of 8 cents .a ton. The present duty on coal is 53 cents, and we propose to make it 45 cents. The duty in the United 'States to-day is 45 cents, and our duty, under this arrangement will be 45 cents. But that is not fully placing the matter fairly before the House. In the United States the duty is 45 cents on the long ton of 2,240 pounds, whereas, ours is on the short ton, so that while nominally there is a similarity, there is not actually quite an equalization of the rates. However that may be, our coal people, who were alarmed over this reciprocity matter, will have to bear a cut of 8 cents per ton on their duty ; and I hope, as one who has warm sympathy for the coal trade, that they will be able to stand it and continue to do business at the old stand.


Morley Currie: Is there any change in the duty on slack coal?


William Stevens Fielding: 
Mr. BRODER.: Is there any change to be made in the valuation for duty?


William Stevens Fielding: Our negotiations have not touched the question of valuation; that must be left to the operation of the customs authorities of the two countries. Then there is a list of implements: Cultivators, ploughs, harrows, horse-rakes, seed-drills, threshing machines, including wind-stackers, baggers and weighers; these are reduced from 20 per cent to 15 per cent. Then, hay-loaders, potato-diggers, fodder or feed-cutters, grain-crushers, fanning-mills, hay-tedders, farm or field-rollers- on these the Canadian reduction is from 25 to 20 per cent. These are the reductions which are being made in our tariff. On the other side of the question, the United States tariff on some of these things is 15 per cent. We have provided that parts of machines shall be introduced at the same rate as the machine itself. In the United States, where they had a nominal rate of 15 per cent upon agricultural

implements of a certain class, it was provided that repair parts for these machines should be dutiable at the rate of 45 per cent. We have provided that the machines and the parts shall bear the same rate of duty. Then, portable engines, horsepower and traction engines for farm purposes, hay-loaders, potato-diggers, fodder or feed cutters, grain-crushers, fanning-mills, manure-spreaders, windmills, and parts thereof for repairs-these are now dutiable in the United States at from 30 to 45 per cent, and we have arranged that the American duty shall be reduced to 20 per cent.
Before I proceed to take up the schedules in detail, there are one or two interesting features which I am sure the House would wish me to explain at the earliest moment. We have had very interesting discussions from time to time over the question of the duty on paper and pulp of various kinds. Our American friends were anxious for some tariff change in relation to these articles. We ourselves were anxious for some tariff changes. As respects certain grades of pulp and paper, mechanically ground pulp, chemical pulp, common printing paper, known as newsprint, and the common pasteboard and the cheaper articles of paper other than newsprint, or common paper, up to a limited value of four cents per pound, we believed that we could compete 'with our American friends on these particular articles and that it was desirable we should have free trade in them. As to the paper of a more advanced quality, I doubt if we would be able to compete with them and we did not' take that class of paper into our negotiations. But as respects pulp of its various kinds and common newsprint paper and common pasteboard and commpn paper of all kinds running to the value of four cents per pound, we would have been quite willing to have reciprocity with them. They said: We are quite willing to do that if you provide that the regulations which exist in some of your prov-. inces with regard to the shipment of pulp-wood shall be removed. Of course, there could be but one answer to that. We have nothing to do with the provincial regulations. These regulations have been made by the provincial governments in accordance with what they believed to be the best interests of their respective provinces, and whether they are good or bad regulations was not for us to debate with our friends of the United States. And so we had to say to them: If you propose to put any such limitations upon the arrangement we cannot object to your doing for yourselves what you think best respecting the terms and conditions upon which you will admit our paper into your ?8i
country; you have the right to impose these conditions, and if they do not suit Canada no harm is done; but we on our side will not agree to make paper and pulp and these articles free in Canada until you have made them free into your country from every province and part of the Dominion of Canada. So, the matter stands in this way: that they will put in their tariff, as set forth in their correspondence with us, an item that these various grades of pulp and paper shall be made free if there be no regulations, either in the form of an export duty or in the form of the provincial regulations interfering with the shipments of pulpwood. Whenever that condition arises they will make paper free. We said: All right, but that is no concession to us, and we will not make your paper free in Canada until you remove the restriction.
Now, there was one other question. It has always been a matter of complaint against the United States (and I may say it has sometimes been a matter of complaint against my good friend the Minister of Customs) that the pious intentions of tariff makers are sadly interfered with by the administration which makes the regulations, and so we thought it necessary to bring that question to the notice of our American friends. As these regulations may arise from time to time, it was impossible to deal with them in detail, but what we thought we ought to do was to obtain on both sides a declaration that there should be no interference by means of vexatious regulations with the good intentions of this reciprocal arrangement, and that both parties would sincerely and earnestly endeavour to facilitate trade along the lines contemplated. It is set forth in our correspondence that if any regulation is found to work adversely either party would have the right to make representations concerning it, and each party pledged itself to the other that it would endeavour to remove any regulation as to which there was found just cause of complaint.
There is one other question, before I come to deal with the correspondence and the schedules, namely, the very important branch of our national industry which touches the fish question. Canada has never enjoyed the advantage of free fish into the United States except upon the condition that she should grant the United States not only similar privileges but the right to fish in the national waters of Canada. That was a condition of the old reciprocity treaty, and under that condition very satisfactory progress in our fisheries was made. There are some people in our country to-day who attach so much importance to the item of free fish that

they would be willing, in order to obtain it, to give to our American friends the right to fish in our waters. We do not think that this represents the national sentiment. We said to our American friends that we were willing to meet them in the exchange of commodities, that we wanted to show our good will, but that we could not discuss this question at all of giving them free fishing, and practically at an early stage in the negotiations that feature was eliminated. One thing further we have done: We have secured, I may say unconditionally, for the first time what is regarded as the very substantial advantage of the free admission of our fish of all kinds into the United States markets. In what is commonly called the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty, made between Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Tupper on the one side and Mr. Bayard, of the United States, on the other, in the year 1888, provision was made for free fish being admitted into the United States, and the condition set forth in thaj, treaty was that Canada should give to the fishermen of the United States certain commercial privileges, such as the right to come into our ports and obtain bait, ice, and supplies, and to ship crews, and transfer their fish. These commercial privileges were to be granted free of all charge and cost to the United States in exchange for the privilege of free fish in the United States market.
It was believed at that time that the treaty would probably be ratified; but as there might be some delay in its ratification, and with a view of avoiding the friction which unhappily was existing in relation to our fisheries, there was put into the form of a protocol what was commonly known as the modus vivendi, in which it was declared that for a period of two years, that being the period within which it was thought the treaty would be ratified, the United States would be allowed to enjoy these commercial privileges by a license to be issued to their fishermen at the cost of $1.50 per ton. That arrangement, which was contemplated for two years, has existed down to the present time. The treaty was not ratified, the American government was not able to secure its ratification in the Senate; but inasmuch as the withdrawal of the modus vivendi, it was thought, might lead to some friction and some embarrassment, the Canadian government decided to let it remain in operation, and it has so remained down to the present time. We get a few thousand dollars from the licenses which are so issued to our American friends. We do not value this license system for the sake of the small revenue it yields. The important point is to maintain our national control of the Mr FIELDING.
inshore fishery. As we shall, if this arrangement he confirmed, receive the benefit contemplated by the treaty of 1888, which failed of ratification, we propose to give the United States fishing vessels these licenses, not exactly free, as that treaty proposed, but for the nominal fee of $1 per annum.	.
I think I have called attention to all the special features of this arrangement, and now I propose to present to the House the form in which the arrangement is made. The decision that was reached was that my hon. friend the Minister of Customs and myself


Mr. BURRELL.: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to ask him how the new arrangement affects fruit?


William Stevens Fielding: When I read the schedules, my hon. friend will find that fruit is made reciprocally free.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What-about dairy products?


William Stevens Fielding: Dairy products are free.


Mr. MONK.: What about garden produce?


William Stevens Fielding: Vegetables are free. I was saying that the form in which this arrangement was made that my hon. colleague and myself should address to the United States Secretary of State a letter setting forth our understanding of what bad been mutually determined, and inviting him to confirm it. I will now read the letter:
Washington, January 21, 1911. Dear Mr. Secretary,-
1.	The negotiations initiated by the President several months ago through your communication to His Excellency the British Ambassador respecting a reciprocal tariff arrangement between the United States and Canada, and since carried on directly between representatives of the governments of the two countries, have now, we are happy to say, reached a stage which gives reasonable assurance of a conclusion satisfactory to both countries.
2.	We desire to set forth what we understand to be the contemplated arrangement, and to ask you to confirm it.	_
3.	It is agreed that the desired tariff changes shall not take the formal shape of a treaty, but that the Governments of the two countries will use their utmost efforts to bring about such changes by concurrent 'legislation at Washington and Ottawa.
4.	The Governments of the two countries having made this agreement from the conviction that, if confirmed by the necessary legislative authorities, it will benefit the people on both sides of the border line, we may

reasonably hope and expect that the arrangement, if so confirmed, will remain in operation for a considerable period. Only this expectation on the part of both Governments would justify the time and labour that have been employed in the maturing of the proposed measures. Nevertheless, it is distinctly understood that we do not attempt to bind for the future the action of the United States Congress or the Parliament of Canada, but that each of these authorities shall be absolutely free to make any change of tariff policy or of any other matter covered by the present arrangement that may be deemed expedient. We look for the continuance of the arrangement, not because either party is bound to it, but because of our conviction that the more liberal trade policy thus to be established will be viewed by the people of the United States and Canada as one which will strengthen the friendly relations now happily prevailing and promote the commerical interests of both countries.
5.	As respects a considerable list of articles produced in both countries, we have been able to agree that they shall be reciprocally free. A list of the articles to be admitted free of duty into the United States wThen imported from Canada, and into Canada when imported from the United States, is set forth in Schedule A.
6.	As respects another group of articles,, we have been able to agree upon common rates of duty to be applied to such articles when imported into the United States from Canada or into Canada from the United States. A list of these articles, with the rates of duty, is set forth in Schedule B.
7.	In a few instances it has been found that the adoption of a common rate will be inconvenient and therefore exceptions have to Ire made.
8.	Schedule C specifies articles upon which the United States will levy the rates therein set forth when such articles are imported from Canada.
9.	Schedule D specifies articles upon which Canada will levy the rates therein set forth when such articles are imported from the United States.
10.	With respect to the discussions that have taken place concerning the duties upon the several grades of pulp, printing paper, &c.- mechanically ground wood pulp, chemical wood pulp, bleached and unbleached, news printing paper and other printing paper, and board made from wood pulp, of the value not exceeding four cents per pound at the place of shipment-we note that you desire to provide that such articles from Canada shall be made free of duty in the United States only upon certain conditions respecting the shipment of pulp wood from Canada. It is necessary that we should point out that this is a matter in which we are not in a position to make any agreement. The restric-tions_ at present existing in Canada are of a Provincial character. They have been adopted by several of the Provinces with regard to what are believed to be Provincial interests. We have neither the right nor the desire to interfere with the Provincial authorities in the free exercise of their constitutional powers m the administration of their public lands. The provisions you are proposing to
make respecting the conditions upon which these classes of pulp and paper may be imported into the United States free of duty must necessarily be for the present inoperative. Whether the Provincial Governments will desire to in any way modify their regulations with a view to securing the free admission of pulp and paper from their Provinces into the market of the United States must be a question for the Provincial authorities to decide. In the meantime, the present duties on pulp and paper imported from the United States into Canada will remain. Whenever pulp and paper of the classes already mentioned are admitted into the United States free of duty from all parts of Canada, then similar articles, when imported from the United States shall be admitted into Canada free of duty.
11.	The tariff changes proposed might not alone be sufficient to fully bring about the more favourable conditions which both parties desire. It is conceivable that Customs regulations which are deemed essential in some cases might operate unfavourably upon the trade between the United States and Canada, and that such regulations, if made without due regard to the special conditions of the two countries, might to some extent defeat the good purpose of the present arrangement. It is agreed that the utmost care shall be taken by both Governments to see that, only such Customs regulations are adopted as are reasonably necessary for the protection of the Treasury against fraud; that no regulation shall be made or maintained which unreasonably hampers the more liberal exchange of commodities now proposed; that representations on either side as to the unfavourable operation of any regulation will receive from the other all due consideration, with the earnest purpose of removing any just cause of complaint; and that, if any further legislation is found necessary to enable either Government to carry out the purposes of this provision, such legislation will be sought from Congress or Parliament as the case may be.
12.	The Government of Canada agree that, until otherwise determined by them, the licenses hitherto issued to United States fishing vessels under the provisions of section 3 of chapter 47 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, granting to such vessels certain privileges on the Atlantic coast of Canada, shall continue to be issued and that the fee to be paid to the Government of Canada for such license by the owner or commander of any such United States vessel shall hereafter be one dollar per annum.
13.	It is understood that upon a day and hour to be agreed upon between the two Governments, the President of the United States will communicate to Congress the conclusions now reached and recommend the adoption of such legislation as may be necessary on the part of the United States to give effect to the proposed arrangement.
14.	It is understood that simultaneously with the sending of such communication to the United States Congress by the President, the Canadian Government will communicate to the Parliament of Canada the conclusions now reached, and will thereupon take the necessary steps to procure such legislation as

is required to give effect to the proposed arrangement.
15.	Such legislation on the part of the United States may contain a provision that it shall not come into operation until the United States Government are assured that corresponding legislation has been or will be passed by the Parliament of Canada; and in like manner the legislation on the part of Canada may contain a provision that it shall not come into operation until the Government of Canada are assured that corresponding legislation has been passed or will be passed by the Congress of the United States.
Yours faithfully,
(Sgd.) W. S. FIELDING.
WM. PATERSON. The Honourable P. C. Knox,
Secretary of State,
Washington, D.C.


Mr. MACLEAN (York).: Does that mean that all or none must be accepted on behalf of each government ?


William Stevens Fielding: Practically, I would say, yes.	,	'


Robert Laird Borden: Is it an indivisible agreement ?


William Stevens Fielding: I would think so, because if we should attempt to make changes our American friends would be equally ready to make changes, and I am afraid that there would be danger of our not making any agreement at all. In that sense. I would say, yes; it would be all or none, although parliament, of course, would have the absolute right to make any changes it saw fit.


William Findlay Maclean: It will be subject to modification or the reopening of negotiations ?


William Stevens Fielding: It might be possible, but I am bound to say that I think the time is exceedingly favourable for the accomplishment of this purpose, if we agree that it is desirable, and any attempt made to delay it by further negotiations, I am afraid, would put in peril the whole arrangement. However, parliament is absolutely free to treat the matter as it deems best. Let me now read the reply of the Secretary of State, the Hon. P. C. Knox:-
Department of State, Washington, January 21, 1911.


The Honourable W.   S.@: Fielding, and The Honourable Williqm Paterson, Washington.
Gentlemen,-I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your communication of this date in relation to the negotiations initiated by the President several months ago for a reciprocal trade arrangement between the United States and Canada, in which you set Mr. FIELDING.
forth and ask me to confirm your understanding of the results of our recent conferences in continuation of these negotiations.
I take great pleasure in replying that your statement of the proposed arrangement is entirely in accord with my understanding of it.
It is a matter of some regret on our part that we have been unable to adjust our differences on the subject of wood pulp, pulp wood and print paper. We recognize the difficulties to which you refer growing out of the nature of the relations between the Dominion and Provincial Governments, and for the present we must be content with the conditional arrangement which has been proposed in Schedule A attached to your letter.
I fully appreciate the importance, to which you call attention, of not permitting a too rigid customs administration to interfere with the successful operation of our agreement, if it is approved by the Congress of the United States and the Parliament of Canada, and I desire to confirm your statement of our understanding on this point. I am satisfied that the spirit evinced on both sides gives assurance that every effort will be made to secure the full measure of benefit which is contemplated in entering into this arrangement.
The assurance that you give that the. Dominion Government proposes to require only a nominal fee from the fishing vessels of the United States for the privileges in Canadian waters for which heretofore a charge of $1.50 per ton for each vessel has been required is most gratifying.
I heartily concur in your statement of the purposes inspiring the negotiations and in the views expressed by you as to the mutual benefits to be derived by both countries in the event our work is confirmed, and I take this opportunity to assure you, on behalf of the President, of his appreciation of the cordial spirit in which you have met us in these negotiations.
I have the honour to be, gentlemen.
Your obedient servant, (Signed) P. C. KNOX.


William Findlay Maclean: In case the Congress of the United States or the parliament of this country should alter in any way the tariff as fixed by this negotiation, what would happen? Would it be, as you were, in regard to everything?


William Stevens Fielding: 
William Findlay Maclean: What would happen then ? Would everything then go back to the old condition ?


William Stevens Fielding: If the United States should change one item in its tariff in a way to prejudice the trade in that particular article, the parliament of Canada might change its tariff on a particular item in such -a way as to prejudice the trade in

that particular article, and if, by and by, one item after another were changed and all the advantages of the arrangement were wiped away, I suppose we would come back to our old condition, and it would be a case of, as you were.


Morley Currie: I would like to ask the minister if any .articles have been signed, or is this just simply a convention, and not a treaty ?


William Stevens Fielding: It is neither a treaty nor a convention in the technical sense. The agreement is to be found in the letter addressed by my colleague and myself to Mr. P. C. Knox, Secretary of State for the United States, and in Mr. Knox's reply, the two documents being those which I have just read. These are the only documents that express the arrangement in any shape or form.


Morley Currie: Then I understand this is not a treaty at all ?
Mr. FIELDING, My hon. friend is quite correct.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask whether the proposed arrangement covers any articles which are imported to any extent from Britain or any of the British possessions, and if so, whether the lowering of duties which has been granted to the United States, is to be extended to Great Britain and the British possessions ?


William Stevens Fielding: Of course, as a general principle, whether Great Britain is to be interested or not, any duty that may be lowered to any foreign country, according to our well established policy, would be at the same time lowered to Great Britain, and a clause will be inserted in the resolutions which I shall have the honour to propose,. providing that where in any case the duties are lowered the benefit shall be extended to Great Britain. As a matter of fact, they are only lower on a few items of food stuffs than the preferential rate and they are articles which Great Britain does not send us at all. Notwithstanding I think that if this arrangement be confirmed, it would probably lead to some readjustment of our tariff here and there, in order that we may maintain, as we fully intend to do, the principle of the British preference and that the concessions under the tariff now existing may be maintained under the condition of affairs when this arrangement is made.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand from those who are more familiar wdth such matters from personal experience than I am, that the necessity of obtaining consular certificates for goods exported from Canada to the United States has been found sometimes a little oppressive. Has any arrangement been made in regard to that matter ?


William Stevens Fielding: It was mentioned and it is covered by the general clause in our agreement that all customs arrangements- and that will include consular certificates -shall be liberally interpreted whatever they may be. We did not think it was possible to go into things in detail because if we attempted to deal with^any particular regulation and failed to deal with some others, we would have been embarrassed and we thought our best position would be to deal with the general principle. Therefore, we determined that no regulation should be allowed to hamper this trade unless the regulation were found to be necessary for the protection of the revenue against fraud.


George Eulas Foster: I did not quite understand my hon. friend's answer to the hon. the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden). As I understood the Finance Minister if in the case of articles imported from the United States and from Great Britain a lower duty is made to the United States, a lowering will also be made to Great Britain. Great Britain now has a preferential rate on certain articles, that preference giving her such and such an advantage, and the lowering of rates on similar articles from the United States, unless the British preference is by that amount increased, diminishes the British preference. Did I understand my hon. friend to say that in all cases of that kind the British preference would be kept intact in its degree?


William Stevens Fielding: Not by the operation of this regulation in itself. I understand my hon. friend's question is whether in the event of any rates being lower on the products of the United States than on the products of Great Britain there would be at the same time a lowering to Great Britain. To that I answer, yes. But I also said, that if this arrangement be confirmed, it would probably necessitate some readjustment of the rates in our tariff laws generally with a view to the maintenance of the preference at whatever rate we may see fit to make.


George Eulas Foster: Would the minister be willing to say whether that has simply to do with the principle of preference or with maintaining the degree of preference?


William Stevens Fielding: A large number of the articles covered by this are free; we cannot make them more than free to Great

Britain, my hon. friend does not imply that. I think it will be found tnat most of the rates-I do not wish to speak too generally, for fear in some cases I should make exceptions-most of the rates we are giving, for example on manufactured goods, are the rates now laid down in the intermediate tariff, of which Great Britain and the world have had notice for several years. There are a few cases in which the rates are lower than the intermediate and even lower than the preference. That is in the case of food products, and as these do not come from Great Britain at all they are of practically no importance in relation to the preference. This instrument deals with duties on goods from the United States, but we would have to look over our tariff and see how it affected the British preference at any given point, and if we see fit to grant Great Britain a larger preference than would remain it is absolutely within the right of this parliament of Canada to fix that preference at whatever we think is a proper rate. That would be a matter for careful examination in detail and I do not think it arises at this moment.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose that to-day Great Britain on any set of articles enjoys a preference of 33J per cent. Suppose that by this instrument the United States is given, in that competing line of goods, a lower duty than it now has to pay, will the Finance Minister say that the British preference shall be kept intact as to degree?


William Stevens Fielding: We do not deal with that in this instrument


George Eulas Foster: I know you cannot.


William Stevens Fielding: But what we will do in regard to any particular item of our tariff in future Acts or resolutions, is a question which I find it impossible to answer at this moment, but I will say that we remain absolutely free to make the rates of the British preferential tariff as low as we like. If the .effect of any given item is what my hon. friend says, to diminish to some extent the British preference, that is diminishing the proportion although not changing the rate, then if we want to give Great Britain a greater preference all we have to do is to reduce the British preferential rate. That is all.


George Eulas Foster: The Prime Minister has declared that one prime consideration kept in view in these negotiations was that whatever happened the British preference would not be interfered with. The Finance Minister will Mr. FIELDING.
not say they will keep the British preference intact but he says, as everybody knows, that this parliament can do just what it likes about that when it is legis-lating_ on that article. But if there was anything made fairly certain it was that whatever was done in this matter between the United States and us the British preference should not be diminished, that is that the degree of the preference should be kept intact. The Finance Minister, I believe, does not go so far as to say that shall be done, he simply throws it on the House and upon our power to do as we like.


William Stevens Fielding: We are dealing to-day with negotiations with the United States. We are giving to the House the result of our negotiations with the United States. It is not necessary for me to say to my hon. friend that the British preference never entered into these negotiations, and that we never (discussed with our American brethren what the British preference should be. The preference is a great and important question. We have dealt with it in the past, we shall deal with it again. I do not want to import into this discussion anything of party colour, but I ask my hon. friend if he does not think that the British preference may safely be trusted in the hands of the men who created it?


George Eulas Foster: I am not particularly interested now as to who created it or procreated it.


William Stevens Fielding: We are.


George Eulas Foster: I have a document put before me, a set of negotiations, and as one member of parliament and representing my people I am asked whether 1 will assent to that or not. As one eondition of my assent I want a straight answer to a straight question, that is whether in any degree my acceptance of this will diminish the British preference as it at present exists, either actually or relatively. I have been led to believe by the assertion of the Prime Minister that it -would not. Will the Finance Minister allay my fears?


William Stevens Fielding: Unfortunately being possessed of somewhat orderly minds, we like to do one thing at a time. This is a tariff negotiation with the United States. We will have to deal with the items in the tariff generally, we will have to consider the British preference and to see how far it would be affected by this if we made any change. But that is an entirely distinct question which we will have to deal with at the proper time, and I do hope -we will be able to deal with it in a spirit of greater sympathy with the principle of the British preference than my hon. friend manifested

when the British preference was brought down. .


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: Would it be considered a breach of faith or a breach of the agreement which has just been entered into if you should keep the corresponding duty on goods coming from Great Britain to Canada 33 per cent lower than the duty on similar goods from the United States?


William Stevens Fielding: No, Sir, we can do as we like with the duties on goods from Great Britain.
This agreement deals with the rates of duty on Canadian products going into the United States, with the rates of duty on American products coming into Canada, only that and nothing more. If my hon. friends will permit me, I will now read the schedules:
Articles the growth, product or manufacture of the United States to be admitted into Canada free of duty when imported from the United States, and reciprocally articles the growth, product or manufacture of Canada to he admitted into the United States free of duty when imported from Canada:
Live animals, viz.:-Cattle, horses and mules, swine, sheep, lambs, and all other live animals.
Poultry, dead or alive.
Wheat, rye, oats, barley, and buckwheat; dried pease and beans, edible.
Corn, sweet corn, or maize (except into Canada for distillation).
We can impose a duty oil com for distillation. In the United States they do not. We maintain our duty for the purpose of distillation, but the corn is free otherwise.
Hay, straw, and cow pease.
Fresh vegetables, viz.:-Potatoes', sweet potatoes, yams, turnips, onions, cabbages, and all other vegetables in their natural state.
Fresh fruits, viz.:-Apples, pears, peaches, grapes, berries and all other edible fruits in their natural state.
Dried fruits, viz.:-Apples, peaches, pears and apricots, dried desiccated or evaporated.
Dairy products, viz.:

Butter, cheese, and fresh milk and cream. Provided that cans actually used in the transportation of milk or cream may be passed back and forth between the two countries free of duty, under such regulations as the respective Governments may prescribe
Eggs of barnyard fowl, in the shell.
Honey.
Cotton-seed oil.
Seeds, viz.:-Flaxseed or lifiseed, cotton-seed and other oil seeds; grass seed, including timothy and clover seed; garden, field, and other seed not herein otherwise provided for, when in packages weighing over one pound each (not including flower seeds).
Fish of all kinds, fresh, frozen, packed in ice, salted or preserved in any form, except sardines and other fish preserved in oil; and shell fish of all kinds, including oysters, lobsters and clams in any state, fresh or packed, and coverings of the foregoing.
Seal, herring, whale, and other fish oil, including sod oil.
Salt.	.
Mineral waters, natural, not in bottles or jugs.	.
Timber, hewn, sided or squared otherwise than by sawing, and round timber used for spars or in building wharfs.
Sawed boards, planks, deals and other lumber, not further manufactured than sawed.
Paving posts, railroad ties, and telephone, trolley, electric light and telegraph poles of cedar or other woods.
Wooden staves of all kinds, not further manufactured than listed or jointed, and stave bolts.	_
Pickets and palings.
Plaster rock or gypsum, crude, not ground.
Mica, manufactured or rough trimmed only, and mica ground or bolted.
Feldspar, crude, powdered or ground.
Asbestos not further manufactured than ground.
Fluorspar,' crude, not ground.
Glycerine, crude, not purified.
Talc, ground, bolted or precipitated, naturally or artificially, not for toilet use.
Sulphate of soda, or salt cake; and soda ash.
Extracts of hemlock bark.
Carbon electrodes.	.
Brass in bars and rods, in coil or otherwise, not less than six feet in length, or brass in strips, sheets or plates, not polished, planished or coated.	.	.	,
Cream separators of every description, and parts thereof imported for repair of the foregoing.	,
*Rolled iron or steel sheets, or plates, number fourteen gauge or thinner, galvanized or coated with zinc, tin or other metal, or not.
Crucible cast steel wire, valued at not less than six cents per pound.
Galvanized iron or steel wire, curved or not, numbers nine, twelve, and thirteen wire gauge.	.
Typecasting and typesetting machines and parts therof, adapted for use in printing offices.	,
Barbed fencing wire of iron or steel, galvanized or not.
Coke.
Round rolled wire rods in the coil, of iron or steel, not over three-eighths of an inch in diameter, and not smaller than number six wire gauge.
Pulp wood mechanically ground; pulp of wood, chemical, bleached or unbleached; news print paper, and other paper, and paper board, manufactured from mechanical wood pulp or from chemical wood pulp, or of which such pulp is the component material of chief value, coloured in the pulp, or not coloured, and valued at not more than four cents per pound, not including printed or decorated wall paper.
Provided that such paper and board, valued at four cents per pound or less, and wood pulp, being the products of Canada when imported therefrom directly into the United States shall be admitted free of duty, on the condition precedent that no export duty, export license fee, or other export charge of any

kind whatsoever (whether in the form of additional charge or license fee or otherwise) or any prohibition or restriction in any way of the exportation (whether by law, order, regulation, contractual relation, or otherwise, directly or indirectly) shall have been imposed upon such paper, board or wood pulp, or the wood used in the manufacture of such paper, board or wood pulp, or the wood pulp used in the manufacture of such paper or board:
Provided also that such wood pulp, paper or board, being the products of the United States, shall only be admitted free of duty into Canada from the United States when such wood pulp, paper or hoard, being the products of Canada, are admitted from all parts of Canada free of duty into the United States.
Note.-It is understood that fresh fruits to be admitted free of duty into the United States from Canada do not include lemons, oranges, limes, grape fruit, shaddocks, pomelos, or pineapples.
These things are largely free in Canada. In the United States they do not want to
make them free, so they are not included in the fruits that are made free.
It is also understood that 6sh oil, whale oil, seal oil and fish of all kinds, being the product of fisheries carried on by the fishermen of the United States shall be admitted into Canada as the product of the United States, and similarly that fish oil, whale oil, seal oil and fish of all kinds, being the product of fisheries carried on by the fishermen of Canada, shall be admitted into the United States as the product of Canada.
That refers to fish taken beyond the tliree-mile limit, which would not 'be strictly a Canadian or a United States product; but if it is taken by Canadian fishermen it assumes the character of a Canadian product, and if it is taken by United States fishermen it assumes the character of a United States product, and is treated accordingly.


SCHEDULE B.
[Stage Direction]
Articles the growth, product or manufacture of the United States to be admitted into Canada at the undermentioned rates of duty when imported from the United States; and reciprocally the same articles the growth, product or manufacture of anada to be admitted in the United States at identical rates of duty when imported from Canada:-
Articles.
Fresh meats, viz.beef, veal, mutton, lamb, pork, and all other fresh or refrigerated
meats excepting game	
Bacon and hams, not in tins or jars	
Meats of all kinds, dried, smoked, .salted, in brine, or prepared or preserved in any manner, not otherwise herein provided for.. ..
Canned meats and canned poultry	
Extract of meat, fluid or not	
Lard, and compounds thereof, cottonlene and
cotton stearine, and animal stearine	
Tallow	
Egg yolk, egg albumen and blood albumen.. .. Fish (except shell fish) by whatever name knoivn, packed in oil, in tin boxes or cans, including the weight of the package:-
(a)	when weighing over twenty ounces and
not over thirty-six ounces each	
(b)	when weighing over twelve ounces and
not over twenty ounces each	
(c)	when weighing twelve ounces each or
less	
(d)	when weighing thirty-six ounces each
or more, or when packed in oil, in bottles, jars or kegs	
Tomatoes and other vegetables, including corn, in cans or other air-tight packages, and including the weight of the package	
Wheat flour and semolina; and rye flour.. .. Oatmeal and rolled oats, including the weight
of paper covering	
Corn meal
William Stevens Fielding: Rates of Duties.
One and one-quarter cents per pound. One and one-quarter cents per pound.
One and one-quarter cents per pound. Twenty per cent ad valorem.
Twenty per cent ad valorem.
One and one-quarter cents per pound. Forty cents per 100 lbs.
Seven and one-half per cent ad valorem.
Five cents per package. Four cents per package. Two cents per package.
Thirty per cent ad valorem.
One and one-quarter cents per pound. Fifty cents per barrel of 196 pounds.
Fifty cents per 100 pounds.
Twelve and one-half cents per 100 pounds

SCHEDULE B-Continued.
Articles.
Barley malt	
Barley, pot, pearled and patent	
Buckwheat flour or meal	
Split pease, dried	
Prepared cereal foods, not otherwise provided
for herein	
Bran, middlings and other offals of grain used
for animal food	
Macaroni and vermicelli	
Biscuits, wafers and cakes, . when sweetened with sugar, honey, molasses or other material	-[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]
Biscuits, wafers, cakes and other baked articles composed in whole or in part of eggs or any kind of flour or meal when combined with chocolate, nuts, fruits or confectionery; also candied peel, candied pop-corn, candied nuts, candied fruits, sugar candy and confectionery of all kinds	
Maple sugar and maple syrup	
Pickles, including pickled nuts; sauces of all
kinds, and fish paste or sauce	
*Cherry juice and prune juice, or prune wine, and other fruit juices, and fruit syrup, nonalcoholic	
Mineral waters and imitations of natural
mineral waters, in bottles or jugs	
Essential oils	
Crape vines; gooseberry, raspberry and currant bushes	
Parm wagons, and finished parts thereof.. .. Ploughs, tooth and disc harrows, harvesters, reapers, agricultural drills and planters, mowers, liorse-rakes, cultivators; threshing machines, including windstackers, baggers, weighers, and self-feeders therefor; and finished parts thereof imported for repair
of the foregoing	
Portable engines with boilers, in combination, horse-powers and traction engines, for farm purposes; hay loaders, potato diggers, fodder or feed cutters, grain crushers, fanning mills, hay tedders, farm or field rollers, manure spreaders, weeders and windmills; and finished parts thereof imported for repair of the foregoing, except shafting	
Grindstones of sandstone, not mounted, finished or not	
Freestone, granite, sandstone, limestone, and all other monumental or building stone, except marble, brechia, and onyx, unmanufactured, or not dressed, hewn or polished.. ..
Roofing slates	
Vitrified paving blocks, not ornamented or decorated in any manner, and paving blocks
of stone	
Oxide of iron, as a colour	
Asbestos further manufactured than ground; manufactures of asbestos, or articles of which asbestos is the component material of chief value, including woven fabrics wholly
or in chief value of asbestos	
Printing ink	
Cutlery, plated or not, viz.:-pocket knives, pen knives, scissors and shears, knives and forks for household purposes, and table steels	
Rates of Duties.
Forty-five cents per 100 pounds.
One-lialt cent per pound.
One-half cent per pound.
Seven and one-half cents per bushel of 60 lbs.
Seventeen and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twelve and one-half cents per 100 pounds. One cent per pound.
Twenty-five per cent ad valorem.
Thirty-two and one-half per cent ad valorem. One cent per pound.
Thirty-two and one-half per cent ad valorem.
Seventeen and a half per cent ad valorem.
Seventeen and a half per cent ad valorem. Seven and a half per cent ad valorem.
Seventeen and a half per cent ad valorem. Twenty-two and a half per cent ad valorem.
Fifteen per cent ad valorem.
Twenty per cent ad valorem. Five cents per 100 pounds.
Twelve and a half per cent ad valorem. Fifty-five cents per 100 square feet.
Seventeen and a half per cent ad valorem. Twenty-two and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twenty-two and a half per cent ad valorem. Seventeen and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twenty-seven and a half per cent ad valorem.

SCHEDULE B.-Concluded.
Articles.
Bells and gongs; brass corners and rules for
printers	
Basins, urinals and other plumbing fixtures for bath rooms and lavatories; bath tubs, sinks and laundry tubs, of earthenware, stone, cement or clay, or of other material..
Brass band instruments	
Clocks, watches, time recorders, clock and watch keys, clock cases, and clock movements	
Printers' wooden cases and cabinets for holding type	
Wood flour	
Canoes and small boats of wood, not power
boats	
Leathers, crude, not dressed, coloured or otherwise manufactured	
Antiseptic surgical dressings, such as absorbent cotton, cotton wool, lint, lamb's wool, tow, jute, gauzes and oakum, prepared for use as surgical dressings, plain or medicated; surgical trusses, pessaries and suspensory bandages of all kinds	
Plate glass, not bevelled, in sheets or panes exceeding seven square feet each, and not exceeding twenty-five square feet each.. .. Motor vehicles other than for railways and tramways, and automobiles, and parts thereof, not including rubber tires	
Iron or steel digesters for the manufacture of
wood pulp	
Musical instrument cases, fancy cases or boxes, portfolios, satchels, reticules, card cases, purses, pocket books, fly books for artificial flies, all the foregoing composed wholly or in chief value of leather	
Rates of Duties.
Twenty-seven and a half per cent ad valorem.
Thirty-two and a half per cent ad valorem. Twenty-two and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twenty-seven and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twenty-seven and a half per cent ad valorem. Twenty-two and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twenty-two and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twelve and a half per cent ad valorem.
Seventeen and a half per cent ad valorem.
Twenty-five per cent ad valorem.
Thirty per cent ad valorem.
Twenty-seven and a half per cent ad valorem.
Thirty per cent ad valorem.


Schedule C.: -Articles the growth, product or manufacture of Canada to be admitted into the United States at the undermentioned special rates of duty when imported from Canada:-
Articles.
Aluminum in crude form	
Aluminum in plates, sheets, bars and rods..
Laths	
Shingles	
Sawed boards, planks, deals and other lumber, planed or finished on one side	
Planed or finished on one side and tongued and grooved, or planed or finished on two
sides	
Planed or finished on three sides, or planed and finished on two sides and tongued and grooved	
Planed and finished on four sides	
In estimating board measure under this schedule no reduction shall be made on board measure on account of planning, tonguing and grooving.
Iron ore, including mangauiferous iron ore, and the dross or residuum from burnt
pyrites	
Coal slack or culm of all kinds, such as wili pass through a half-inch screen	
Rates of Duties.
Five cents per pound.
Eight cents per pound.
Ten cents per 1,000 pieces. Thirty cents per thousand.
Fifty cents per M. feet B.M.
Seventy-five cents per M. feet B.M.
One dollar and twelve and a half cents per M. feet B.M.
One dollar and fifty cents per M. feet B.M.
Ten cents per ton of 2,240 pounds. Fifteen cents per ton of 2,240 lbs.


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Findlay Maclean: What about anthracite coal?


William Stevens Fielding: That is at present free on both sides. We do not produce it in Canada.


Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron).: What about the standard for anthracite?


William Stevens Fielding: There is nothing in our regulations touching anthracite at all. We have a few articles on the other side, and this sets forth the terms and conditions upon which these are to be admitted into Canada from the United States, being the items with respect to which we did not find it convenient to have a common rate.


Schedule D.: -Articles the growth, product or manufacture of the United States to be admitted into Canada at the undermentioned special rates of duty when imported from the United States:-
Articles.
Rates of Duties.
Cement, Portland, and hydraulic or water lime, in barrels, bags, or casks, the weight of the package to be included in the weight
for duty	
Trees, viz.:-Apple, cherry, peach, pear, plum, and quince, of all kinds, and small peach
trees known as June buds	
Condensed milk, the weight of the package to
be included in the weight for duty	
Biscuits without added sweetening	
Fruits in air-tight cans or other air-tight packages, the weight of the cans or other packages to be included in the weight for
duty	
Peanuts, shelled	
Peanuts, unshelled	
Coal, bituminous, round and run of mine, including bituminous coal such as will not pass through a three-quarter-inch screen..
Eleven cents per 100 pounds.
Two and a half cents each.
Two cents per pound.
Twenty per cent ad valorem.
Two cents per pound. One cent per pound.
A half cent per pound.
Forty-five cents per ton.
This completes the schedules which, 1 am sorry to say, have occupied the attention of the House longer than I thought they would.
Mr. EMMERSON, Would the hon. minister, before he leaves these schedules, state the changes made in the tariff with respect to building and grinding stones?


William Stevens Fielding: I am going to include in the schedule a comparison showing the effect of the changes in each article-showing the American rate, our rate, and the new rate, and the reductions on each side. With the permission of the House I shall Rand it into ' Hansard ' without reading it.


Andrew Broder: Is there any understanding about the packages in whidh free goods are shipped?


William Stevens Fielding: In some cases we have mentioned it. For instance, in the case of cream we have provided that the cans containing it, which may pass to and fro, shall be free of duty.


Andrew Broder: They put a heavy duty on the packages.


William Stevens Fielding: We have thought of that, and my hon. friend will find that the wording of the item is entirely satisfactory. These reductions will apply to British goods as well, if they should he found in any case to affect them. But these oases will be found to be very few. They will ajpply, however, not only to the United States but they will apply to every country with which we have what is called the favoured nation treaty. It is well understood that by virtue of these old treaties (many of them made years ago at a time when Canada had hardly reached its present mature status, and when the colonies were not so consulted as they are now in regard to these arrangements), these old treaties still outstanding and binding the whole empire oblige us to give whatever is given to one country to all other countries possessing these treaties. We have had that question repeatedly up here, and hon. gentlemen no doubt understand it. And so, these reductions wall have to be given in each ease to the various countries which have what is called the favoured nation treaties.
It is too soon to make any very close examination into the financial results, but

I thought we ought to make an approximate estimate and that it would interest the House to know what that estimate is. As far as we can see on a hurried examination, on the basis of last year's business-assuming that for the first year under the operation of this arrangement the volume of trade to be the same as last year,- it would result in a reduction of taxation amounting to $2,260,000. Therefore, even from the point of view of the reduction of the burden on the taxpayer the matter is well worthy of attention.
We have been impressed, Mr. Speaker, from the beginning-my hon. colleague the Minister of Customs and myself, who have been charged with these negotiations-with the great importance of the matter. I need hardly say we have given to the work our best consideration and attention. We have fortunately had the benefit of the assistance of two capable and able officers of our public service. I refer to Mr. John McDougald, the Commissioner of Customs, or Deputy Minister of Customs as he really is, and Mr. James A. Russell, for many years in the Customs department, but now assigned to the tariff branch of the Finance Department. In the preparation of the information necessary for an intelligent study of this question, and later on in the working out of the details of the arrangement, we have received from these gentlemen a service of the utmost value, and I desire in this public way, to express how deeply we are indebted to them.
It would be too much to expect that an arrangement of this character should be adopted without careful criticism and perhaps it is too much to expect that it should be passed without adverse opinion. The common experience is that all grave and important movements are calculated sometimes to alarm people and that we are amazed afterwards as the years roll on to find how our anticipations have not been realized. I trust it will be found by those who have been somewhat anxious, perhaps nervous, possibly alarmed for the outcome of. these negotiations; I trust as they look into the matter carefully, they will find, as I believe they will find, that their anxiety, while very natural, was hardly necessary. In this arrangement, they will find that every interest in the Dominion of Canada has received our careful consideration. We hope indeed to broaden the trade between our neighbours and ourselves; we have desired to find larger markets for our products. We are doing that all the time; we are sending our commercial agents to the uttermost ends of the earth to seek for business; why not seek it from the 92,000,000 people who live side by side with [DOT] us ?
We present this arrangement as one Mr. FIELDING.
which we feel we can sincerely commend to the judgment of this House and of the people of Canada. We do not present it to the House as something in which we have won a victory over our American friends. That, Sir, would be a small return for the good spirit in which they have met us. I desire to say that throughout these negotiations the President of the United States has given us abundant reason to appreciate his sincere desire to carry out a friendly arrangement. He will carry into the completion of this transaction the authority of his great office and his great talents; he will carry into it, Sir, all the energy and ability he possesses to bring it to a successful issue, and I know he will make it a labour of love.
And, no less commendable has been the line of conduct of the distinguished Secretary of State of the United States, Mr. P. C Knox. As this is an international matter, it came under the direction of the Secretary of State. Mr. Knox gave it close personal attention for many days, day after day, and I know he is not less anxious than the President of the United States to bring about a friendly arrangement. From these two distinguished gentlemen, from every oflicer of the State department and Treasury department, and from all with whom we were brought in contact we found abundant evidence of an honest and sincere desire to make a friendly arrangement with us.
We present the arrangement to you to day, Sir, not as a triumph of one country over the other, but as the result of an effort to do justice to both; we commend this arrangement, Sir, to the judgment of this parliament as the President of the United States will commend it to the judgment of the Congress. The one fear I have is that there may be people who will say that we have made so good a bargain that the Congress should not approve of it. In times past friendly arrangements have been made with the United States government which have failed to receive the approval of the Congress, 'but we think the time is more favourable now. We think we have found the psychological moment for dealing with this question; we think we are within reach of some of the commercial advantages for which our people have struggled now for half a century. We commit this matter to the care of the Canadian parliament with the firm conviction that it is going to be a good thing for Canada, a good thing for the United States, and that we will continue to have it and maintain it not because there is any binding obligation to do so, but because the intelligence of the people of the two countries will decide that it is a good thing for the promotion of friendly relations and for the development of commerce of the two countries.

Resolution to be moved in Committee of Ways
and Means.
That it is expedient to amend the Customs Tariff, 1907, and to provide as follows:-
1.	That the articles, the growth, product or manufacture of the United States, specified in schedule A shall be admitted into Canada free of duty when imported from the United States.
2.	That the articles, the growth, product or manufacture of the United States, specified in schedules B and 1 * shall be admitted into Canada upon payment of the rates of duty specified in the said schedules when imported from the United States.
That the advantages hereby granted to the United States shall extend to any and every other foreign power which may be entitled thereto under the provisions of any treaty or convention with His Majesty.
That the advantages hereby granted to the United States shall extend to the United Kingdom and the several British colonies and possessions with respect to their commerce with Canada. Provided however, that nothing herein contained shall be held to increase any rate of duty now provided for in the British preferential tariff.
That it is expedient to provide that the Act proposed to be founded on the foregoing resolutions shall not come into operation until a date to be named by the Governor in Council in a proclamation to be published in the ' Canada Gazette ' and that such proclamation may be issued whenever it appears to the satisfaction of the Governor in Council that the United States Congress has enacted or will forthwith enact such legislation as will grant to Canada the reciprocal advantages provided for in certain correspondence dated Washington, January 21, 1911, between the Honourable P. C. Knox, Secretary of State for the United States, and the Honourable W. S. Fielding, Minister of Finance of Canada, and the Honourable William Paterson, Minister of Customs of Canada.
Mr. FIELDING,


STATEMENT No. 1.-RECIPROCAL TARIFF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA.
[Stage Direction]
Statement of Articles and Duties Specified in
£
[Stage Direction]
SCHEDULES A and B.
Articles .	Canadian Tariff.	United States Tariff.	Rates now proposed for both United States and Canada.	Reduction by United States.	Reduction by Canada.Preferential.	Intermediate.	General.	15 per cent....	224 per cent...	Free	25 per cent.$2 per head...	$3.75 „ ..	*3.75 .. . .	274 Per cent ..	274 per cent ..	$10	$12 50	$12.50 ..	$12.50.15 per cent...	224 per cent ..	25 per cent.$30	25 per cent....	25 per cent ...	Swine	lc. per lb	lfc. per lb ...	14c. per lb	$1.50 each....	*1.50 each	14c. per lb.15 per cent....	224 per cent ..	25 per cent.75c. per head..	75c. each	.$1.50 11	[DOT]$1.50 „ 	15 per cent	224 per cent ..	25 per cent ...	20 per cent ...	20 per cent ...	25 per cent.15	224 „	25 per cent ...	3c. per lb	3c. per lb	25 „124 	174 I.	20 * „	5c. 11 	20 „25 cents	25 cents 	12 cents.0 	10 „ 	10 ,1 	10 „ 	10 „7 „ 	9 „ 	10 „ 	15 	15 „ 	10 „10 	124 ,i ...	15 „*....	30 1, 	30 „ 	15 1.10 .. 	12" „ 	15 „ 	15 „ 	15 „ 	15 „15 	22i .. 	25 	45 „ 	45 „ 	2510 H 	124 	15 	25 ,1 	25 „ ....	(seed pease 40c)	40 	15 „124 " [DOT] *	174 " 	20 „	25 cents 	25 11	20 „15c. p. bushel.	25 cents ..	10 „30 per cent....	25 per cent....	25 per cent....	30 per cent.15 ' M	274 	.10' 	25 	25 	3015 	274	30 	40c. p. bushel	40c. p. bushel.	3015	274 	30 	2c. each	2c. each 	30All other vegetables in their natural state	15 	274 	30 	25 per cent	ii 	25 per cent....	30
O
o
o
m
lift
O
[Stage Direction]
Fresh fruits, viz.-
Apples	
i Pears	per 100 lbs.
* Peaches	
Grapes	
Wild blueberries, wild strawberries and wild raspberries Blackberries, gooseberries, raspberries and strawberries, n.o.p	
All other edible fruits in their natural state, N.O.P....
Dried apples	
Dried peaches, pears and apricots	
Butter	
Cheese	
Fresh milk	
Fresh cream	
Eggs	
Honey	
Garden, field and other seeds not herein otherwise provided for, when in packages weighing over one pound each, not including flower seeds
Grass seed, including timothy and clover seed	
Flaxseed or linseed	per bush
Cotton seed and other oil seeds	
Hay	per ton
Straw	 „
Extract of hemlock bark	
25c. per bbl..
35 cents	
67c. p. 100 lbs. l|c per lb	
Free.
l^c. per lb... 17h per cent.. 17$	..
174	-	* [DOT]
3c. per lb	
2c. it	
15 per cent 15	„	....
2c. per doz....
2c. per lb	
5 per cent	
35c. per bbl...
45 cents	
90c. p. 100 lbs. l|c. per lb....
40c. per bbl.. 50 cents ... . $1 per 100 lbs 2c. per lb....
Free	
lfc. per lb.. 22~, per cent. 22*	„	.22*	„	.
4c. per lb.
3c.	„
17* per cent..
2*c. per doz.. 2*c. per lb... 10 per cent...
Free	
2c. per lb... 25 per cent. 25	„	.
[DOT] 2 "
. 3c. per doz. . 3c. per lb.. . 10 per cent.
Glycerine, crude, not purified	
Fish-
Mackerel, fresh, pickled or salted, per pound.
Herrings, fresh	
Pickled or salted	
Smoked or kippered, per pound	
Halibut and salmon, fresh, pickled or salted, per pound Cod, haddock, ling, pollock, fresh, salted or pickled, per pound.
Boneless, per pound	
Eels and smelts, fresh or frozen, per pound	
All other, fresh, pickled or salted, per pound	
Salmon and all other fish, prepared preserved, n.o.p... If in packages containing less than half a barrel, United States (minimum 30 p.c.)
Oysters-
Shelled, in bulk, per gallon	
Shelled, in cans not over one pint, including the duty on cans, per can.
Shelled, in cans over one pint and not over one quart, including the duty on cans, per can.
7ic	
5 per cent___
$1.65	
.65	
Free	
(for man Free	
10 „ .
10c	
10 per cent___
$1.75	
.75	
Free	
ufacturing pu Free	
h cent	f cent..
35 cts. per 100 lbs.
£ cent	
45 cts. per 100 lbs.
cent	
I7h per cent .. 27^ per cent .
7 cents.. 2 „ ..
9 cents... 2| cents .
4£ cents
10 „ .
10c	
10 per cent.
$2	
$2	
Free	
rposes.)
Free	
1 cent	
1	
50 cts. per 100 lbs.
1 cent	
1	
1 „	
1 „	
1	
1 „	
30 per cent.
Free	
25c	
Free	
$4 (2,240lbs.,, $1.50 (2240 lbs) Ac. per lb. .
lc. per lb.
1 cent....
£ cent....
50 cts. per 100 lbs.
£ cent....
1 cent....
$ cent....
y cents ..
cent....
* cent	
30 per cent. 30 per cent.
10 cents .
3	„	..5	„	..
Free., Free.,
Free..
25c. p. bushel.	Free	25c. p. bushel.25c. ..	M	25c.25c.	M 	25c. ii25c. p. cub. ft.	II 	25c. p. cub. ft.cap. of bbls.	cap. package.or packages.	lc. per quart..	II 	lc. per quart..lc. tt	„	lc. iiFree or 25 p.c.	'I .	Free or 25 p.c.
2c			2c. ii 	
6c. M 	,,	6c. ii ....6c. ii ....	II 	6c. ii ....2c. per gal...	II 	2c. per gal	5c. ti 	II ....	5c. i. 	5e. per doz....	II 	5c. per doz	20c. per gal...	u 	20c. per gal...from 15c. per	II 	15c. per bush.bush, to 20c.	to 20c. per lb.
25c.
$4 (2,240 lbs ] $1.50	„
Ac. per lb....
[Stage Direction]
1 cent	
£ cent	
50 cts. per 100 lbs.
\ cent	
1 .*	
1£ cents	
f cent	
i
30 30
per cent... per cent..
40c. per bbl. 25 cents bush, .f 1 per 100 lbs. 2c. per lb.
2c.	„
25 per cent. 25	„
25	„
4c. per lb. 3c.	h
17* per cent. 17*	..
3c. per doz. 3c. per lb.
10 per cent.
10c.
10 per cent.
[Stage Direction]
«2.
1 cent	
1 „	
50 cts. per 100 lbs.
1 cent	
1	
1 „	
30 per cent
10 cents . 3	„	.2481	JANUARY 26, 1911	2482
William Stevens Fielding: 
William Stevens Fielding: 
William Stevens Fielding: RECIPROCAL TARIFF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND CAN ADA-Continued.


SCHEDULE D.
[Stage Direction]
Articles.
Cement, Portland	per 100 lbs.
Trees, viz.: Apple, cherry, peach, pear, plum, and quinces, of all kinds and small peach trees known as June buds, each.
Condensed milk, the weight of the package to be included in the weight for duty.
Biscuits without added sweeting	
Fruits in air tight cans or other air-tight packages, weight of cans or other packages to be included in weight for duty.
Peanuts, shelled	
Peanuts, unshelled	
Coal, bituminous, round and run of mine, including bituminous coal such as will not pass through a three-quarter inch screen.
Canadian Tariff.			United States
Preferential.	Intermediate.	General.	Tariff.
		12i cents ... 3" it 		
2 „ 	2i - 	$2 per m. to 25 per cent.2c. per lb	3c. per lb	3^c. per lb....	2c. per lb	15 per cent....	2'2h per cent..	25 per cent ...	20 per cent ...l£e. per lb....	2c. per lb	2£c. per lb....	2c. per lb....2c. per lb	2c. per lb	lc. per lb.. ..1 |c. 11 ....	2c. it ....	2c. m 	he. ii 	36c. per ton...	45c. per ton. .	53c. per ton...	45c. per ton (of 2,240 lbs).
11 cents 2£ „ .
Rates
now proposed for Canada.
2c. per lb.
20 per cent 2c. per lb.
lc. per lb...
Ic	
46c. per ton (of 2,000 lb).
Reduction
r	by
United States.
Reduction
by
Canada.
I5 cents, cent.
ljc. per lb.
5 per cent. £c. per lb.
lc. per lb. 8c. per ton.
* Indicates " estimated. "
2495	COMMONS	2496
Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I shall not, of course, at the present moment attempt to follow the Minister of Finance in a detailed examination of the proposals which he has presented to parliament. The first thing that strikes one in connection with these proposals is that they are of a very far-reaching and comprehensive character and that they amount in many respects to a proposal to parliament to enact an entirely new tariff. What their effect may be upon many industries in Canada and especially on many of the smaller industries scattered all over the country I would not attempt to-day to suggest. Looking at them as the Minister of Finance presented them to the House, I was inclined to think that the conditions of trade as they kre in Canada at the present time will be subject to very serious interference and dislocation from these proposals. Probably there is no man in this House of Commons to-day, not even the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Customs, who can foresee with any reasonable degree of accuracy just what the effect upon our trade conditions may be in the future as resulting from these changes.
One or two observations, however, of a general character I would like to make. My hon. friend the Minister of Finance has referred to the. history of reciprocal relations with the United States of America. He has said very truly that we in this country must always have regard to the fiscal policy of a great nation numbering nearly one hundred millions of people, whose boundaries adjoin ours for nearly 4,000 miles. I entirely agree with that. And I would like to suggest to my hon. friend that we ought, also, to have earnest and serious regard to our relations with the three hundred millions of people who are under the British flag with ourselves. But when the Minister of Finance spoke of the history of reciprocal relations with the United States in the past he might well have drawn a moral and a lesson which he did not draw in the spirit in which he addressed this House to-day. Let us look for a moment at that treaty of reciprocity which existed between the British North American colonies and the United States between 1854 and 1866. What were the conditions of trade during that period, and what followed the denunciation of that treaty by the United States? Certain lines of trade and of industry were established in this country during the years in which that treaty was in force. When that treaty was denounced my right hon. friend remembers, and most of the members of this House remember, that intense confusion was wrought in all conditions of life in Canada by the fact that that treaty was denounced upon one year's notice. Canada
did not realize at that time her strength. Canada, it is true, did not then possess the strength which she possesses to-day. But Canada encountered that situation with a firm and confident spirit, and after many years of progress and development under a policy laid down by the Liberal-Conservative party in 1878, and carried out almost unimpaired by the gentlemen who now sit upon the treasury benches, Canada occupies a position at the present time which does not seem to call for the active interference with our fiscal conditions which has been proposed to this House.
Mr. Speaker, what has been the song, what has been the cry, of the Minister of Finance, of the Minister of Customs, and of the Prime Minister himself, in this parliament? During the past eight or ten years they have been telling us over and over again, in every budget speech to which I have listened, that the conditions of Canada were so absolutely satisfactory that every good and true Canadian ought thoroughly to rejoice therein. Canada found new markets after the denunciation of the reciprocity treaty, she found those markets for the most part within the limits of the British Empire, she found markets which she might confidently believe would be open to us, not only now, but in all the years to come. Well, Sir, what does the Minister of Finance propose to-day? He proposes an arrangement of a very far-reaching and comprehensive character, which will bring about a considerable dislocation in the business interests of this country; there is no doubt at all about that. What does he say as to the duration of that arrangement? He says it is expected that this arrangement will continue for a considerable time. Nothing could be more indefinite. My hon. friend the hon. member for South York (Mr. Maclean) asked the Minister of Finance a question, which was upon my own lips; he asked: Is this an indivisible agreement? Does it mean everything that is contained in these resolutions and these schedules, everything or nothing? The Minister of Finance answered that by saying, in a rather indefinite and hesitating way, that he supposed, so far as he understood the situation, that it meant everything or nothing. Well. I would think that the Minister of Finance should be able to give to parliament, in presenting a statement of this important and far-reaching character, the certain meaning of this treaty in that regard. My hon. friend from South York asked the minister another important question, which had also occurred to me. Suppose the Dominion of Canada, next year, or the year after, or five years from now, interfered with one single item set forth in these schedules, or with half a dozen items contained in them, what would

be the net result upon the understanding which has been arrived at between the two countries? In that respect, also, the answer of the Minister of Finance left it open to every member of this House to draw whatever conclusion he might see fit. The answer was no answer at all, and we. do not know at this moment, the Minister of Finance has not seen fit, or is not able to say, what the result would be upon this understanding between the two countries if, in two years from now, the parliament of Canada saw fit to alter or amend the customs duties in respect to half a dozen of these items.


William Stevens Fielding: This parliament will be absolutely free to do what it likes, the United States congress and this parliament are both absolutely free. This is an arrangement to which we are committed 'because we believe it is for the good of both countries ; and if one year hence we make up our minds, one country, or the other, that this arrangement is not mutually beneficial, we will change it, that is all.


Robert Laird Borden: Well I am bound to say that that seems to be an extraordinary arrangement, an arrangement of a most indefinite and unsatisfactory character, an arrangement the duration of which is uncertain, the character of which is uncertain, and the effects of which are uncertain-except that we are assured that they will in the immediate future dislocate the conditions which the government have pronounced for many years past to ibe absolutely satisfactory to the people of this country.
Now, let us look for a moment at the reasons which have impelled the government to enter into this arrangement. My hon. friend was exceedingly frank; he told the House, and very truly, that the government of this country, almost against their will, had 'been forced into making this arrangement by the suggestions from the United States that they intended to impose their maximum tariff, whereupon the government of Canada, only a year ago, saw fit to recede from the attitude they had held down to the opening of last session. My hon. friend" placed himself and his government in an exceedingly curious position toy one remark he made to-day. He said that it would have been the duty of the President of the United States to withhold the minimum tariff from Canada unless the concessions which were made toy this parliament last year had been agreed to by Canada, and in the next breath he said that these concessions were of so paltry and trivial a character that the people of Canada need not toe concerned with them at all. Now, will any hon.
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax!.
gentleman in this House tell me that the President of the United States would have felt himself constrained to hold the tariff of Canada, -without those paltry and trivial concessions, as unjust or discriminatory towards the United States? Why, the mere statement of the case is sufficient to refute the argument of my hon. friend the Minister of Finance in that regard, and to show the people of Canada that if the government had stood firm at their post as they promised to do at the commencement of last year they would not have been obliged to make the concessions of last session or to engage in the reciprocity negotiations, the result of which has 'been brought down by the hon. Minister of Finance to-day. That is the true history of these negotiations, as I understand it.	.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance has said that the proposals winch he submits to parliament may be roughly divided under three considerations; in the first place, that the arrangements are to be carried out by mutual legislation, and not by treaty, in the second place that there is a large free list which consists chiefly of natural products and, in tne third place, that a uniform rate of duty is to be imposed by the two countries upon many articles which are enumerated in one of the schedules. Well, Sir, he has mentioned some articles that are free and he has mentioned some upon which there is to be a uniform duty. In so far as some of the items are concerned, for example, that of agricultural implements, I do not believe that the reduction of the duty upon agricultural implements, which he proposes, will yield the slightest iota of relief to any of the farming population of tnis country, and I am convinced that the price which will be charged the farmers in the future will not be affected in the slightest degree whatever by the reductions which he proposes to make in that regard. The Minister of Finance has referred to several important articles of agricultural production which are to be admitted duty free into the United States. We will discuss those later on. He has referred to the importation into the United States of fish free of duty and he has said that the government of Canada has declined to extend to the fishermen of the United States access to our fishing grounds. That also will be discussed later on. He says that the government of this country denied the United States free fishing. I would like to tell the Minister of Finance and the government that the fishermen of the Unued States at the present time enjoy free fishing in many Canadian waters simply for the reason that those waters are not protected as they ought to be.

I think, Mr. Speaker, that the policy of Canada in fiscal matters ought to be regulated and directed solely with a view to the interests of the Canadian people as a whole. I understand and I thoroughly appreciate the importance of good relations with the United States of America. The United States of America have fixed tneir tariff in the past and they will fix it at all times in the future purely from the standpoint of the interests of their own people and the development of their own country. It is our duty in Canada to do precisely the same thing. We have had in this country, since 1878 or 1879, a policy which lias sought to protect and develop our own natural resources by the labour of our own people. The object of any government in this country ought to be to accomplish that good and desirable- result without imposing any oppressive burdens on the people as a whole, and the Conservative party has stood, and it stands today, for a policy of that kind. The Conservative party stands to-day, as it stood in the past, for the policy of reciprocity within this great British Empire. As far as we are concerned we believe that the aim and object of the fiscal legislation of this country ought to be to promote that great end and object, and we believe that, for that purpose, as well as for the purpose of fiscal freedom in every possible respect, we ought to keep ourselves free of all entangling treaties, or alliances, or understandings; that that object and purpose, which I regard as the greatest consideration that could be before the -eyes of any Canadian statesman to-day, should be kept constantly before our minds and that _ everything that would lessen the possibility, probability or imminence of carrying out that great scheme of reciprocity within the empire ought to be banished from our minds and put aside as unworthy of our attention.
Then, there is another consideration, Mr. Speaker, which, I think, ought to be borne in mind. As a natural result of the policy to which I have alluded-the policy of building up our own country, developing our own resources and keeping our people at home-we have had the lines of communication in the past running from east to west and not from north to south. They have run from the Atlantic to the Pacific, they have not stopped at the Atlantic or the Pacific, but they have stretched across both oceans, and I see in the proposals which the government has brought down to-day a purpose and object which seems to me to be absolutely inconsistent with that which has been, as I have understood, the purpose and object of the Canadian people for the last thirty years at least. I do not regard it as a good omen
for the future of Canada that the government of the day should seek to alter that condition and to divert those lines of trade and communication, now running from east and west so that they shall run in the future from north to south. We have spent a great deal of money in this country, we have taxed our resources perhaps as the resources of no other people in the world were ever taxed to carry out the policy, the object and purpose to which I have alluded, and if there is any meaning at all in the proposals of the government to-day they mean the almost absolute and complete reversal of that purpose and object.
One would have thought that the present was an especially inopportune time for taking up tariff negotiations with the United States; in the first place, because the tariff of the United States, as is well known, is very much higher than our own in very many important articles indeed; and, for the further very good jmd important reason that if you can judge at all from the trend of public opinion in the United States, the probability is that the tariff of the United States will be revised and very largely reduced upon many of those articles which are enumerated in the schedules brought down by the Minister of Finance.
The negotiations, in short, are a sequel to the surrender which this government made last year. I am, at the same time, of the opinion that if our government had then stood firm the government of the United States would never have imposed their maximum tariff against Canada.
In conclusion, while not able to apprehend the full meaning and scope of these proposals or the exact results which will ensue from this tariff policy now proposed, I believe it is open to severe and grave criticism by reason not only of the considerations which I have very briefly addressed to the House this afternoon, but by reason of the fact that it does not, sufficiently regard the position of this country as an integral and important nation of the British Empire and does not sufficiently regard the purpose, the object and scope of the policy to which Liberals and Conservatives alike, as I understand the records of the past have been committed with respect to the development of Canada and its status as a nation of the British Empire.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.
On motion of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the debate wTas adjourned.


CHINA-JAPAN STEAMSHIP SUBSIDY.
[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to authorize the Governor in Council to, on or after the seventh of April, 1911, grant a subsidy for steamship service between a port or ports on the Pacific coast of Canada and China and Japan, for such period or periods of time as may be deemed expedient, not however to exceed in the aggregate ten years, and to pay therefor a subsidy or subsidies, as the case may be, not exceeding the sum of 25,000 pounds sterling per annum for such service as may be deemed expedient from time to time.
He said: The House will understand this resolution when I say it is to renew the subsidy which has been voted for some years past to the Canadian Pacific railway for the service which is now well' known between Vancouver and Japan and China,
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the resolution.
Robert Laird Borden: How long has this arrangement been in force?


Wilfrid Laurier: The subsidy
was put in force shortly after the Canadian Pacific railway was completed and has been continued for some 20 years. It has been renewed once. The subsidy has been contributed by the Canadian and the imperial governments. We are not certain yet whether or not the imperial government will continue their contribution, but we are in communication with them on the subject.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What boats are engaged in this service?


Wilfrid Laurier: There are three boats, the ' Empress of China,' the ' Empress of Japan,' and the ' Empress of India.' The service is about every twentieth day and the speed of the boats fifteen knots.


Robert Laird Borden: I saw some reference in the press to the refusal of this government to co-operate with the governments of Australia or New Zealand with respect to some such service.


Wilfrid Laurier: No, it is quite the reverse. My hon. friend refers to the Australian service. There is another line of steamers subsidized from Vancouver to Australia and New Zealand. That service has been in operation now for several years. We are renewing it now. There has been some difference between the governments of Australia and New Zealand. New Zealand is contributing a very large sum but the government of Australia has refused up to the present Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
to again aid this service unless there is direct communication with them, avoiding the port in New Zealand. We thought it would not be advisable to give up the service to New Zealand. We have offered the governments of Australia and New Zealand to renew the service just as it was, simply with an improved service, but up to the present time the government of Australia has not thought fit to join. We are in hopes, however, they may be persuaded to do so. At all events, we have endeavoured to maintain the service even if it be confined to Canada and New Zealand.


Robert Laird Borden: That is a distinct service from this?
Sir WILFRID LAURIER, Absolutely.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We should have some information about this service, whatever the expectations in connection with it have been realized, whether the trade with China and Japan has greatly improved, for instance, in wheat and fruit stuffs. We should also know what provision there is for the carriage of perishable products, whether there is cold storage and whether we have any control over the freight rates.


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no arrangement for cold storage on the boats. The result as to improvement of trade has not been very much. We have some trade with Japan which has been increasing to some extent. Our trade with China has made very little progress, if any. Notwithstanding this, I believe that at the present time it would be very unfortunate if these services were abandoned, when China is developing very rapidly, and when Japan is also developing. The little trade we have with those countries would then go to San Francisco, and I think it is worth the sacrifice we are making to keep that trade in our own hands.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A few years ago there were trial shipments of flour to China and Japan, and rather bright anticipations were held out about the trade that we ought to develop along that line. It was said that it would be a veTy valuable trade to the Northwest. We ought to have some information as to whether that trade is being established or not, or whether -we are making the proper efforts to get it.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 
Wilfrid Laurier: The suggestion that we should have cold storage on the ships is a very reasonable one. The conditions of the contract between the government and the company have not yet been adopted. We are merely asking here for the authority of parliament to renew the contract. I will report to my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce the suggestion that has been made. I can give to my hon. friend the information that he asked as to the character of the steamers.


DESCRIPTION OF VESSELS EMPLOYED ON THE CANADA, CHINA AND JAPAN SERVICE.
[Stage Direction]
Name	Dimensions.	Tonnage.	Passenger Accommodation.	Refrigerator space.	Knots speed.Length.	Breadth	c. 9 ft	0)	Gross.	Capacity. i	1st class.	3rd class.	4 th class.	Ft.	Ft.	Ft.	Cu.ft.	Empress of India	455-6	51-2	331	3,032	5,934	3,000	200	40	1,000	nil.	15Empress of China	455-6	512	33 1	3,046	5,947	3,000	200	40	1,000	nil.	15Empress of Japan	455 6	512	331	3,039	5,940	3,000	200	40	1,000	nil.	15
Thomas Simpson Sproule: It has been stated in the press that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company intend to place larger boats on the Pacific next summer, I presume for this service. This proposal is to renew the contract for at least ten years, which would mean subsidies aggregating $1,250,000. This is a contract which has been in operation for several years, and the wisdom of parliament must be exercised to determine whether it be wise to renew it or not or whether, if it be renewed, different terms should not be insisted on. That can only be judged by the results we have had in the past, and for that purpose I desire to find out whether the trade has been developing from year to year and to what extent and in what lines. Many years ago when we agreed to give subsidies to certain steamship lines, we provided that they should be equipped with cold storage and we had an agreement with them as well regarding the rates. But, if I correctly understand the present position, the government do not seem to be taking any precaution in that line whatever, and thus we may be giving a big subsidy which may practically bring us no profit. If there be little or no trade, our subsidy will be so Tnuch money thrown away. To enable us to judge whether it be wise to vote this large amount for the next ten years we should know more about what have been the results under the contract about to terminate.


Wilfrid Laurier: I shall give all that information at the next stage.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to be allowed to insist upon the cold storage provision.
Undoubtedly, whatever may have been the results in the past, there is a very large cold storage trade to be done with the east. Large quantities of our perishable products are required in China, and these can only be sent there in steamers provided with cold storage. I think it would be proper, in a contract of this magnitude, to stipulate that cold storage facilities must be provided and further that the rates should be under the control of the government or the Railway Commission. Otherwise this company may charge the same rates to shippers as if they were receiving no subsidy whatever from the government. If they want to do that trade, they will have to equip their vessels with cold storage in any case; and when we give them a subsidy, they should be obliged, not only to provide that cold storage, but to submit their rates to the control of this government. Some time ago I heard a complaint regarding lumber shipments on these steamers. In the eastern ports lighters are used to take the lumber from the steamers to the shore, and it appears that the lighter charges were such as to render the sihipment unprofitable, It would, therefore, be necessary to stipulate in the contract that the lighter charges should be moderate and not such as to make the trade unprofitable.


Mr. LEMIEUX.: I agree that when the steamers, the 'Empress of Japan' and the 'Empress of China,' were put on the line between Vancouver and the eastern ports, the refrigerator system was not what it is to-day. But the Canadian Pacific Railway authorities are contemplating putting new steamers on that service. My

hon. friend from Jacquees Cartier (Mr. Monk) will see, by the last annua] report of the Canadian Pacific railway, that its president, Sir Thomas Shaughnessy, announced that before long new steamers would 'be put on that route. In 1891, and the years immediately following, when we gave a subsidy to the Canadian Pacific railway, the company was practically depending on its return cargoes of silk and tea, because practically there was no trade from this country to the east on the outward voyage except the tourist business. Since then, however, the Canadian Pacific railway has recognized that it must put larger steamers on this route equipped with the most modern refrigerator system. So far the company has given good service, but my hon. friend is quite justified in saying that the refrigerator service requires to be improved on account of the increasing trade in perishable products between the far east and Canada.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I have noticed that the Canadian Pacific railway contemplate improving that service, but we are now about to make a contract with it, and that contract will be made long before these new steamers are in operation. At any rate the point regarding cold storage should have the attention of the government. If we are going to give this large subsidy, we should reserve control over the freight rates on perishable products, as otherwise our trade will languish, whereas the American trade with the east is in full bloom and vigour. I do not know whether my hon. friend the Postmaster General, during his travels in the east, noticed whether the lumber was taken ashore in lighters.


Rodolphe Lemieux: They invariably use lighters to tranship their freight to the wharfs. As regards perishable products, I notice that the apple trade is growing immensely with Japan and China, and also the cheese trade. I told the exmember for Perth (Mr. McLaren), that I had seen some of his cheese in Tokio and Yokohoma, but it had been shipped on American boats, just because there were no refrigerators on board our steamers. The point taken, therefore, by my hon. friend was well taken.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The complaint I particularly made was with regard to the special rates charged by the lighters, and these rates, in spite of the protests of the shippers, are persisted in by the Canadian Pacific railway. It would ibe necessary to guard against that by providing that the freight rates would cover the carriage from port to port irrespective of these additional charges. Such subsidies should be made absolutely conditional upon our control of the freight rates.


Rodolphe Lemieux: 


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do we pay an additional subsidy to these boats for carrying the mails ?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The mail contracts are made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and revised by the Post Office Department, but the subsidy is for the mails.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is the subsidy simply for the carriage of the mails and not for the purpose of stimulating trade?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The subsidy is supposed to be not only for the carriage of the mails but to stimulate the development of trade between the two countries, just as in the case of the Atlantic service.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: These subsidies are not paid only for carrying the mails?


Wilfrid Laurier: No.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The main object of the subsidy is to encourage trade.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If the subsidy was merely for the carriage of the mail there would be no need to stipulate about cold storage.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: And no need of such a large subsidy either.


Mr. BLAIN.: This legislation will give the Governor in Council authority to spend $125,000 a year for ten years and the government should be able to tell us what the extent and nature of the trade it is expected will be developed with China and Japan. Usually, when we ask what trade has been developed by the voting of these large subsidies for steamers to different parts of the world the government have to answer that the development of trade was not as large as they expected. Again, I would suggest that although the resolution gives the government power to contract for ten years it would be much better to make the contract for five years so that parliament might have An opportunity to say at the end of the shorter period whether it was wise to continue the subsidy or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: This is of course merely for the renewal of the subsidy. My own personal view is that in the immediate future I do not expect there will be much development of trade as a result of this subsidy, but I certainly do expect that some years hence we shall have a large and gfowing trade with the Orient.


Richard Blain: In what class of goods?


Wilfrid Laurier: I should think in cereals, lumber, fruit, manufactured products, minerals such as lead, and as the Orient, Japan especially, is coming more and more to western civilization, I should think we would have a large trade

in machinery with Japan and possibly with China. I shall remember the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) that possibly it would not be wise to make a contract for ten years. Certainly I would be inclined somewhat to his view that the term should be five years.


William Findlay Maclean: Can the Prime Minister say how this would affect Prince Rupert as a Pacific port?


Wilfrid Laurier: Sufficient for the day is the evil or the good thereof. It is quite possible that when Prince Rupert has come to be the terminus of the new Transcontinental line we may have to adopt the same policy with regard to it that we do with regard to the Canadian Pacific railway.


Mr. DANIEL.: How many trips a year are we now getting for the subsidy?


Wilfrid Laurier: About eighteen.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: This is a very considerable subsidy and I am inclined to believe that even if there was no subsidy it would be impossible for a wealthy and powerful corporation like the Canadian Pacific railway to abandon that part of its round-the-world route, and that it would be necessary for them to maintain that steamship line for the next ten years. However I believe with my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) that ten years is a very long period to contract for. It would be more satisfactory if the contract were laid upon the table of the House for approval before it was finally entered into; so that we may see whether these features in connection with the freight rates and cold storage are carefully safeguarded. What information I have received would lead me to believe that there would be a very much larger movement of lumber from the province of British Columbia towards the east if it had not been that the rates charged were absolutely unreasonable.


Wilfrid Laurier: The points raised by my hon. friends somewhat commend themselves to my judgment and I think I will be able to answer them at the next stage of the Bill.


George Eulas Foster: When the next stage comes we shall have information as to what progress has been made in the quantity of freight taken in and out during the last twenty years and as to what class of goods have been carried. I sympathize with the Prime Minister and the rest of the government in the matter of the small amount of information we have been aDle to draw from them. It is almost wonderful how little ministers may know when they come to ask parliament for a subsidy of $125,000 a year for ten years, to a company like this. We can see from the blue-book reports what the trade with China and Japan
is, but it would be very instructive to know what proportion of that trade comes by these subsidized steamers. If it should turn out to be that but a small proportion is being carried by them it might need investigation as to the cause, and if it shall be found to be due to high freight rates that should be guarded against. The Postmaster General told us that no allowances were paid to these steamers for the mails, and that it was included as one of the duties they were to perform in earning the subsidy. Is it the same in the case of the carriage of the British mails. What arrangement is there now about the mails between Great Britain and China and Japan? Who pays the cost of carriage across from port to port?


Rodolphe Lemieux: 
George Eulas Foster: 
Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not exactly say, but there is a large amount paid by the imperial authorities, and then there is a subsidy by the Trade and Commerce Department, which includes the Canadian mails taken by the Canadian Pacific railway.


George Eulas Foster: Suppose the minister traces it from London, how does it come?


Rodolphe Lemieux: It comes by our Atlantic steamers, by the Canadian Pacific railway or the Allan steamers, to whom we pay subsidies.


George Eulas Foster: Are we paying for the British mails?


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, not for British mail coming here, but we pay for Canadian mails going out. The British government is paying for British mails coming in. The mails are taken off the steamer by the Intercolonial railway as far as Montreal or Quebec.


George Eulas Foster: For which the Intercolonial railway gets paid?


Rodolphe Lemieux: The Intercolonial railway gets a proportion.


George Eulas Foster: Where does the Intercolonial railway gets its proportion from?


Rodolphe Lemieux: That depends. If all the mails are delivered at the Rimouski wharf, then they are taken to Quebec, where they are delivered to the Canadian Pacific railway, or to Montreal, and then the Intercolonial railway get a proportion for carrying them from Rimouski to that point. Then the mails are taken by the Canadian Pacific railway straight on to Vancouver, where they are delivered on the Canadian Pacific railway boats and carried across.


George Eulas Foster: Then for a British mail starting from Liverpool or other British port, the British government pays the cost of passage across the Atlantic?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: It then goes on the Intercolonial railway, and is handed to the Canadian Pacific railway at Quebec. Does the British government pay for the cost of their jpail, the China and Japan mail, on the Intercolonial railway?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I could not give the figures to my hon. friend, but there is an arrangement made by the two governments at the end of every fiscal year, and adjustment as regards the proportion.


George Eulas Foster: The object of the adjustment is that the British government shall pay for its through mails whatever that carriage costs. What I want to get at is whether we are mixed up with their accounts."


Rodolphe Lemieux: No, we have a special contract.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It seems to me the time has come for us to consider whether we ought not to adopt the same system as they have in England, and I think in the United States, where they pay so much for carrying the mails, irrespective of any trade considerations. Trade subsidies are not given to ships in England nor in the United States. With us the situation is different. I am not opposed in principle to subsidizing steamship lines for trade purposes, but I think that those purposes to be entirely distinct from- the carriage of mails. We ought to adopt the system they have in those countries, where they have more experience than we have, and pay for the carriage of mails distinct from all other purposes.


Wilfrid Laurier: I agree with my hon. friend that the time may have arrived when we should revise our mail subsidies between Canada and Great Britain. But my hon. friend knows under what conditions these subsidies were paid, in the infancy of steam navigation, when Sir Hugh Allan organized a service between Canada and Great Britain. The Canadian government at that time decided, and I think very properly, to give special inducements to the enterprise of Sir Hugh Allan. At that time Canada had not a population like that of the United States or of Great Britain. There had been no necessity at all for giving a special subsidy for the encouragement of that line for trade purposes, trade alone was sufficient to induce enterprising merchants to organize such a service. But we did it with a view of getting a mail service between Canada and Great Britain. This steam service has been going on something like sixty years.
Mr. LEMIEUX
My hon. friend says we should revise that system, and I do not dispute it. I think the time has well come when we may, perhaps, think of having a mail service between Canada and Great Britain on the rule of paying so much per ton. Now, with regard to our trade with the Orient. Some time after the completion of the Canadian Pacific railway it was thought advisable to give them a special subsidy to help them to put on a service between Vancouver and China and Japan. This subsidy is not given exclusively for the carriage of mails; it is given in excess of what would be a legitimate compensation for carrying the mails. But it was done to encourage trade, and to establish communication between Canada and the Orient. I am bound to say that that trade has not developed_ to the extent we had expected. But I think no one at this moment would desire to abandon that service. We think it ought to be maintained, even if it has not done all we expected from it; at all events, we think it better to leave it as it is. I may say to my hon. friend that I did not expect to be able to-day to give to the House all the information which he desires. I ex- [DOT] pected a good many questions would be put to the government for information, and at a later stage we will be_ in a better position to give that information.


George Eulas Foster: Let me remind the Prime Minister that when this service was started twenty years ago he was strongly opposed to it.


Wilfrid Laurier: I do not know about that.


George Eulas Foster: Yes; I had the pleasure myself of bringing down the subsidy, and I had to put forth all my small powers to overcome my hon. friend's objections on that occasion. Does my hon. friend forget that?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend does me a great credit and a great honour to say that he had to overcome my poor opposition. I think he will not find that I said a word against that service.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I quite recognize that the conditions of sixty years ago are very different to-day. I understand that some of the information we seek to-night can be brought down later. My right hon. friend will admit that we took on habits sixty years ago with regard to steamship subsidies that it is now high time we should abandon. I have no objection to continuing subsidies for trade purposes to steamship companies, but I think there must be a diminution in the first place, and in the second place we should make these subsidies absolutely subject to conditions which will protect shippers, and that is not done at the present time. Line after

line of steamships has been established, and they have all received subsidies, but they fail to provide the accommodation which we should exact from them. I regret I have not the papers connected with trade in the Orient, but my recollection of the information contained there was to the effect that several very important contracts for oriental governments, or for private firms there, were lost on account of the excessive rate of freight over the Canadian Pacific railway lines. When investigation was made it was found that although the apparent freight rate was not excessive, the great expense was brought about by these special rates charged upon the lighter. I think that a complete reconsideration of the terms upon which we subsidize the steamship lines is now advisable.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: I did not quite understand the Postmaster General to-day in answering the question with regard to the Atlantic mail service, as to whether the subsidy was granted or not, and who was carrying out the contract.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Does my hon. friend refer to the question put this afternoon?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If the subsidy had been renewed and if new conditions had been imposed with a view to just this question?	i


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I answered, no, there is a contract which is not yet terminated between the government and the Allans and that contract has not been altered. It is still in existence, and I think it is in existence for one year more. It has not been renewed and no new condition has been attached to the contract.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: I cannot help thinking that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) has taken a proper position with regard to urging upon the government the necessity of adopting some kind of cold storage system when these' subsidies are granted to the large steamship companies, and I hope the government will take that matter into consideration.


Morley Currie: I understand that this subsidy is to be granted on the Pacific coast. Any one who knows the conditions of shipping on the Pacific coast knows that the Japanese are subsidizing their lines heavily. Not only do the Japanese subsidize ships that fly the Japanese flag but 'they also subsidize the building of ships for Japan and in Japan. I think that the subsidies granted on the Pacific coast should be narrowed down to the shipping companies that are owned 80
and controlled in Canada. If we are going to maintain our trade on the Pacific and keep it in our own hands we must fight the enemy with the same weapons that they are fighting us with. They have succeeded in driving the Americans entirely out of trade by their methods on the Pacific. They have driven such a strong power as Jim Hill out of business and they now own his ships. In making this contract, I hope the Prime Minister will endeavour to take the national ground and, if possible, give the mail contracts to those ships owned in Canada at the present time and that he will also make a further condition that in five or six years, or within a limited period, the subsidy may be earned only by ships built as well as owned in Canada. The policy of the government with respect to the navy is intended to promote the shipbuilding industry, and if that shipbuilding industry is to be promoted it must be promoted along commercial lines as well as along naval lines. If there is to be a shipyard on the Pacific coast then, before very many years have passed, those ships that go out from the Canadian ports on that coast should be Canadian-built ships and the subsidies that we grant should be granted on the same basis as the Japanese have granted their subsidies to Japanese ships. That is the policy adopted by Japan and it is the policy adopted by Germany. These nations have, within the last ten or fifteen years emerged from obscurity- in maritime matters and have become very important naval and mercantile nations. I do not see anything in this resolution which would narrow it down so as to ensure that the subsidy should only be paid to Canadian-owned ships. There ig nothing to prevent it being granted to Japanese-owned ships. The ships of the Canadian Pacific railway line are now owned in this country.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But they are not registered here.


Morley Currie: The registration is a mere matter of form. It is only a matter of a few dollars. Whether they are registered in Canada or England, they have the same rights in all British ports, but the question is, supposing that the Japanese succeed in driving our present shipping lines out of business on the Pacific coast, will this subsidy revert to the Japanese owners that may take these lines over? The condition that I have spoken of exists in so far as the American lines are concerned. I understand that the American ships are now owned and manned by the Japanese, and we should avoid that if possible. I hope the Prime Minister will take note of that and in.



making the contract ensure that the ships shall be Canadian ships, and if possible, before many years pass, that they shall be built on the Pacific coast, where they hope to have a large shipbuilding industry.


Wilfrid Laurier: I might remind my hon. friend that this subsidy is intended for the Canadian Pacific railway ships, and I am sure that my hon. friend has no doubt at all in his mind that these ships will not go into Japanese hands, but that they will remain in the hands of the Canadian Pacific railway. As to the general tone of my hon. friends' remarks, if he will permit me I will offer them my strong commendation for their wisdom, and I hope they will be heard on the other side of the House especially by the hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. .Monk).


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I quite approve of what my hon. friend from Simcoe (Mr. Currie) has said, but when my hon. friend proposes to place the condition upon the subsidy that they should be Canadian ships does he mean to say that they should also be ships of Canadian register because we have some 'Canadian ships that are not registered in Canada?


Morley Currie: If I could narrow it down to have them built and owned here I would do so, but you cannot do that in twenty-four hours.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that. Of course, that condition would be impossible if there is going to be any continuity in the service. But, there is still further impossibility about the other condition mentioned by the hon. member for Simcoe that they should be ships of Canadian register. There are no oceangoing .ships on the Pacific ocean of Canadian register capable of carrying out this contract. All steamships of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company are registered in England. That my hon. friend should confine the subsidy to British ships and that he should wish to keep it out of the hands of Japanese capitalists is all right, but he could not possibly carry out any' contract of this kind with ships registered in Canada because there are none at all on the Pacific or Atlantic capable of fulfilling the conditions of this contract.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend from Simcoe will see what an amount of missionary work he has to do on the other side of the House to convince them of the truth of his statements. I am a convert to his policy, and I hope that ships will be built at Collingwmod to do service on the Pacific ocean.


Morley Currie: 


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It is the expression of a very good hope.


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, and a fact.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But my right hon. friend admits that I am right in my statement of fact, does he not, that these ships intended to be subsidized at the present moment cannot fulfil the conditions pointed out by my hon. friend from Simcoe?


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: With respect to hopes for the future, I have just as -many as my hon. friend.


Wilfrid Laurier: Oh, no, my hon. friend cannot have. This subsidy^ is intended for ships which are now built. My hon. friend from Simcoe referred to ships to be built afterwards.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Oh, no.


Morley Currie: As to the registration, any ship built in England and registered there desiring registration m Canada is registered here on payment ot some small fee like $50, so it would not cost the Canadian Pacific railway much to have its ships registered here. Then they would be Canadian owned and Canadian registered.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension: ships are registered either in Canada or in England, the object of registering in England being to bring them under the operation of a government contract which renders them liable to serve as cruisers in time of war. If they are built under certain conditions set down by the British government, they _ possess advantages of a special kind. It is pot a matter merely of a few cents or dollars to register ships in Canada that have been registered in England. The Canadian Pacific railway ships, like the Allans and others, are registered in England for a specific purpose, to serve, by arrangement with the British government, as cruisers or as transports in time of war.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the reason why they have a special system of subsidizing in England and give only what is called poundage in the mail service. My hon. friend must not forget that the British government to-day pays huge subsidies for the Atlantic service between Liverpool and New York the Cunarders. The ships that j)ly between Southampton and South Africa, receive huge subsidies called mail subsidies, but for the very reason mentioned by the hon. member from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) that in time of war they may be utilized for other purposes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: It has nothing to do with trade at all.


William Findlay Maclean: I think it is a system of protection.


Mr. CROSBY.: I am delighted to hear the Prime Minister give expression to his anxiety to have ships built in Canada. We in Halifax and those interested in Halifax, have been seeking for a subsidy for a number of years. I think it is 10 years since I had the honour on one occasion of coming here with a delegation asking the government to grant a subsidy to assist us in commencing a ship building industry in Halifax. I have no doubt there are other places where they could be built, but we claim that we at least have a reasonable right to ask some assistance. The local government of Nova Scotia, the city of Halifax, and the town of Dartmouth, gave bonuses towards the construction of a ship building plant. If the right hon. gentleman had been as anxious to have ships built in Canada 10 years ago as he seems to be to-night we would no doubt be building ships in Halifax now. I would ask if it would not be possible, even at this late date, to have provision made in the supplementary estimates for such a subsidy. Steel and iron ships have already been built in other parts of the province, but we in Halifax claim that the province and city have been interested in this project and have gone a long way in this matter, and should receive assistance, although we have almost given the matter up because we have not been able to get any encouragement from the present administration to assist us in starting a ship building industry in Halifax. If that had been done 10 or 12 years ago we no doubt would be now constructing ships there suitable for this kind of work. Of course it takes some time for any ship building yard to construct the kind of ship run by the Canadian Pacific railway on the Atlantic and Pacific. But we would be in a position to build commercial ships for transportation on the Atlantic and also on the Pacific. I think it would be well if the Prime Minister would give us that promise, and I am sure the people of the eastern part of Canada and of Canada as a whole would be glad indeed, to hear that we were to get some encouragement in the direction of a subsidy or assistance to the construction of ships in Canada and do away with all this worrying about having them built and registered in Canada, be, cause unless the government"could assist us there is not much prospect of our being able to build ships in competition with other countries that have long been engaged in the ship building industry. In the United States they are willing to pay large 801
sums in order to have ships constructed in their own country. It is easy to prove that this government would be doing good missionary work for the Dominion of Canada by giving a good subsidy to encourage ship building here.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Aly right hon. friend has the opportunity of seeing his hopes fulfilled.


Wilfrid Laurier: In what way?


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Give a subsidy and we will have ships built in Canada.


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot give a promise, I am blamed every day by the Conservative press for making promises.


Adam Brown Crosby: Aly right hon. friend had no hesitation in saying to my hon. friend from Simcoe (Air. Currie) that he was anxious to have ship building in Canada, but when it comes to building ships in Canada the right hon. Prime Minister keeps his seat.


Wilfrid Laurier: Not at all, they have a ship yard in Collingwood.


Adam Brown Crosby: Ship building in Collingwood, the right hon. gentleman does not worry about it very much. I say it is not fair to intimate these things and when an opportunity offers to do something definite to withhold assistance. If the Prime Alinister would promise a subsidy it would be good news to send out to-night to offset some of the bad news for some parts of the country that will be in the papers to-morrow.
Resolution reported, read the first and second time and agreed to.
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 103) relating to steamship subsidies.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. AIACKENZIE KING moved second reading of Bill (No. 97) to prohibit the improper use of opium and other drugs. He said: Air. Speaker, the House will remember that a year or two ago a Bill was introduced into and passed by this parliament having for its purpose the suppression of the opium traffic in Canada. That Bill came as a result of the inquiry which took place on the Pacific coast shortly after the riots which had occurred, affecting the conditions of the Chinese and Japanese residing in the city of Vancouver. A number of Chinese whose stocks of opium had been somewhat damaged in those riots put in claims for losses which they had suffered in the
[DOT]2519
[Stage Direction]
manufacture of opium. Those claims came as a surprise to a good many people in this country, who were not aware that the opium traffic was making any headway on this continent, particularly in Canada. Upon the report of the inquiry which I had the privilege of making, a Bill was introduced by the then Minister of Labour, the Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, for the purpose of prohibiting the manufacture, sale and importation of opium. So far as the manufacture of opium is concerned that Bill has proved most effective. Where there were seven factories operating in different cities on the Pacific coast three years ago, there are none at the present time ; so that the manufacture of opium in Canada has been completely suppressed by that legislation, and the importation has been very largely suppressed. On the other hand, it has been found that in spite of the regulations, a considerable amount of opium has been smuggled into Canada. The police have found that the present legislation is not drastic enough, or broad enough, to give them the powers of seizure and confiscation which they regard as necessary. One of the objects of the present Bill is to make more drastic the regulations in that regard. Before submitting this Bill to the House I conferred with the chiefs of police in Vancouver and Montreal, two officers who have had a good deal of experience in administering the law, and obtained from them suggestions which are embodied in the Bill.
The legislation of two years ago did not prohibit opium smoking. It was thought, that as parliament was prohibiting the importation of opium. the smoking of opium would itself cease. But this has not proven to be the case, foT it is found that the practice of opium smoking is considerable in a good many of the cities of Canada. The present Bill prohibits absolutely the smoking of opium.
I would like to bring to the attention of the House the international aspect of this question. In 1909 an international commission met in Shanghai for the purpose of considering whether it was possible for the different nations of the world to assist the Chinese government in its efforts to suppress the opium traffic ifl China. As is generally known, it is estimated that something like 20,000,000 people in that empire are victims of the opium habit, and the Chinese government, recognizing the importance of a strong manhood to the nation, has sought to eradicate the evil and has asked other nations to join with it in the effort to suppress the opium traffic. At that international commission some 13 or 14 different countries were represented. It was the first international commission which has ever assembled in the Orient. The British Empire had five representa-Mr. KING.
tives including one from this country. After a careful investigation and series oi reports from the several delegations the International Commission adopted a series of resolutions which the various delegates were asked to present to their respective governments in the hope that these governments would give effect to them. I shall read those resolutions, inasmuch as we are seeking, by the Bill before the House, to give effect to those resolutions so far as Canada is concerned. The first resolution relates to the efforts which the Chinese government is making to suppress the opium traffic, and is in the following words :
That the International Opium Commission recognizes the unswerving sincerity of the government of China in their efforts to eradicate the production and consumption of opium throughout the empire, the increasing body of public opinion among their own subjects by which these efforts are being supported, and the real, though unequal, progress already made in a task which is one of the greatest magnitude.
The second resolution is:-
That in view of the action taken by the government of China in suppressing the practice of opium smoking, and by other governments to the same end, the International Opium Commission recommends that each delegate concerned move its own government to take measures for the gradual suppression of the practice of opium smoking in its own territories and possessions, with due regard to the varying circumstances of each country concerned.
It may be of interest to the people of this country to know that when that International Commission met in Shanghai it was possible for the example of this country to be cited as one to be followed by other nations. It was pointed out that that example had been followed by the United States, and the commission hoped that it would be followed by other countries. The third resolution is:-
That the International Opium Commission finds that the use of opium in any form otherwise than for medical purposes is held by almost every participating country to be a matter for prohibition or for careful regulation; and that each country in the administration of its system of regulation purports to be aiming, as opportunity offers, at progressively increasing stringency. In recording these conclusions, the International Opium Commission recognize the wide variations prevailing in the different countries, but it would urge on the attention of the governments concerned the desirability of a re-examination of tbeir systems of regulation in the light of experience with other countries dealing with the same problem.
That is what we are doing in considering this measure.
The fourth resolution expresses the need for co-operation between the nations, and 'is as follows :
That the International Opium Commission finds that each government represented has

strict laws which are aimed directly or indirectly to prevent the smuggling of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations into their respective territories; in the judgment of the International Opium Commission it is also the duty of all countries to adopt reasonable measures to prevent at ports of departure the shipment of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations, to any country which prohibits the entry of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations.
The fifth resolution relates to the other drugs than the particular one referred to as opium and its alkaloids. It was recognized in this gathering, composed of men who had given careful study to the question, that as the opium traffic was suppressed other drugs equally dangerous might take its place, such as morphine and cocaine, and the commission took fihe ground that it was desirable that every country which sought to suppress the opium habit should also pass effective legislation with respect to other habit-forming drugs. It is found that the morphine and cocaine habits prevail in some of our cities to an extent which, to say the least, is distressing. I mention these two drugs because of the bearing of the fifth resolution of the commission on the proposed legislation, which resolution I will now read :
In the present Bill will be found a clause with this object in view :
That the International Opium Commission finds that the unrestricted manufacture, sale and distribution of morphine already constitutes a grave danger, and that the morphine habit shows signs of spreading. The International Opium Commission therefore desires to urge strongly on all governments that it is highly important that drastic measures should be taken by each government in its own territories and possessions to control the manufacture, sale and distribution of this drug, and also of such other derivatives of opium as may appear on scientific inquiry to be liable to similar abuse and productive of like ill effects.
In this report of the International Opium Commission, which held meetings at Shanghai from February 1, to February 26, 1909, we have the recommendation on the part of the representatives of thirteen different countries that each should pass legislation which would effectively suppress, not merely the habit of opium eating and smoking, but also the habits that are formed in connection with such drugs as morphine and cocaine. The parliament of Canada, by passing the legislation now proposed will, therefore, be assisting not merely to put down the evil in this Dominion, but will be taking part in a world wide movement which has for its object the suppression of this kind of evil in all countries.
Mr. JAMESON.: Who represented Canada on that occasion?


Mr. KING.: I had that honour. In acb dition to the report of this commission, it may interest the House to know that the druggists of this country at their last annual meeting in Halifax-the meeting of the Canadian Pharmaceutical Association- passed on September 10, a very strong resolution on this subject. Of course in a matter of this kind the experience of physicians and of those who have to do with the sale of drugs is all important, and I would, therefore, ask permission to quote part of the speech delivered by the president of that association on that occasion. It will be found on page 4 of the report under the subject heading ' Control of the Supplies of Narcotic Poisons.' :
The control of supplies of narcotic poisons, notably cocaine might profitably engage your attention, and your deliberations should quite properly lead to a request to the federal government to consider the advisability of enacting measures to more completely safeguard the public from the harmful consequences of unregulated use of these dangerous drugs. It is futile to attempt to restrict the supply of these drugs in the absence of general and effective measures throughout the domain. The welfare of our public demands that inviolable laws be enacted by the parliament of our country to make it impossible to procure these peculiarly degrading drugs for any but legitimate professional treatment. As to the proper medium of supply, it is clearly evident that the trained and legally qualified pharmacist is the one person indicated for this function and control by conditions established by govermental regulation through co-operation with your association. This logically suggests the need of a Dominion Pharmacy Act, and as this aspect of the question is to come before you in another relationship, nothing further in this regard is necessary for my present purpose. The necessity for closer restrictions on narcotic drugs of less marked character than those usually recognized as dangerous might he dealt with at this section. It must have come within observation of more than one pharmacist that much harm and misery is wrought by uncontrolled use of even so apparently innocent a preparation as paregoric. There is no logical reason why it should not he sold subject to the same condition as other preparations of opium.
In addition to those two reports from specially qualified sources, I might give to the House information which has come to me unsolicited within the last few weeks from different parts of this country. The number is indeed amazing of the communications which have come to the department from all quarters since it became generally known that legislation of this kind was proposed. These communications all go to show the serious character of the evil we are endeavouring to deal with and the urgent need of immediate legislation. I have a letter sent me to-day by the Dominion parole officer, Mr. Archibald, who has had a good deal of experience with criminals as they

leave the prisons, and he says in this letter -which incloses a confidential communication under consideration by another department:
It is only one of many I come in contact with, and I am safe in saying that 12 to 15 per cent of all the young prisoners I come in contact with credit these drugs with the cause of their downfall.
There you have the statement by General Staff Inspector Archibald that from 12 per cent to 15 per cent of the young prisoners he comes in contact with attribute their downfall to drugs. He adds:
I am grateful for humanity's sake that something is contemplated for relief of a system which is taking hold of many of our best young men and bringing in its train the consequent ruin to both the mental and physical life in our Dominion. Had I time and opportunity to make a census of prisons, I would be greatly surprised if the percentage would not reach over 25 per cent of their populations rather than the figures quoted from my actual experience.
When I communicated with the Chief of Police in Vancouver and sent him a copy of the Bill which I proposed with regard to opium, this is what he replied:
November 21, 1910.
Dear Sir,-I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of the 19th inst., having reference to the Dominion Act

I had previously discussed this subject with Chief Chamberlain, in Vancouver, and communicated with him by wire when about to 'bring this measure before my colleagues.
I have the honour to acknowledge receipt of your telegram of the 19th inst., having reference to the Opium Act, and asking for suggestions from me with a view of amending the same, and in reply beg to state that I would strongly recommend the following amendments :-
1st. It should be an offence for any one to he found smoking opium. At the present time it is not an offence.
2nd It should be an offence for any person to he found in possession of opium other than a qualified druggist or doctor.
3rd. The Act should provide for seizures, confiscation and destruction of opium found in an opium joint when searched under warrant and issued under section 641. The new section 642 providing only for the confiscation and destruction of the pipes, chairs, tables, .fc., hut not for the opium found in these dens.
I may say that opium seems to he coming :n here in large quantities, as my officers are frequently capturing men with it in their possession, and I have no doubt for every one that is captured there are as many more escape the vigilance of the officers, and I am strongly of the opinion that there should he - close supervision of the water-front of Vancouver to prevent smuggling generally, as I am satisfied that it is carried on to an enorm-Mr. KING.
ous extent and that no time should he lost in ' putting a patrol boat to keep a constant watch along the docks.
Hoping the above suggestions will meet with your approval.
I have the honour to he sir,
Your obedient servant,
R. G. CHAMBERLAIN, Chief Constable.
Then in reply to a communication I addressed to Mr. O. - Campeau, the chief of police in Montreal, I received the following: Montreal, December 10, 1910.
Dear Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication of recent date asking if 1 had any suggestions to offer in connection with the Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons to prohibit the importation, manufacture, sale and use of opium, and especially as regards the best means of suppressing the opium traffic and the evils growing out of same.
I took communication of the Bill, and in my opinion its dispositions shall contribute iu a great measure to the suppression of that disastrous traffic.
I wish, 'however, to call your attention to another traffic which, since about six months, spread devastation in this city especially. I mean to say the trade of cocaine.
Since six months the Montreal police have made over one hundred and twenty-five arrests of persons for selling or using that drug.
As you know, the only legislation which-applies to the sale of cocaine is the Pharmaceutical Act of this province, and the penalties enacted for its violation are very lenient.
The fact that the violation of this law is growing up so rapidly and with so disastrous effects shows evidently that the present legislation is not effective.
Therefore, without offering specific suggestions concerning the Bill presently before the House of Commons for consideration, I will ask if it would not be possible to include in this Bill the cocaine and other drugs.
According to the medical men the cocaine produces worse effects than opium, and it would be a good occasion to adopt proper legislation to suppress the cocaine traffic and the evils growing out of same.
One of the means whereby information is gathered by the Department of Labour in relation to matters affecting industrial and social conditions is the selection from newspapers of items which are classified and kept for reference. I have here a very large number of such clippings referring to this subject, but I shall only read one or two to indicate the nature of the reports which have recently appeared in the press. In the Montreal ' Witness ", of November 23, 1910, under the heading ' Cocaine a Social Plague ' there is an account of some convictions that took place before Mr. Recorder Dupuis who is reported to have used the following language:
'This curse of cocaine,' proceeded Mr. Recorder Dupuis, speaking with emphasis, 'has existed for a short time in the city. It is a

real evil. It is a social plague, and it goes on spreading so fearfully tiiat it is time for society to take marked notice. Alcoholism and morphia are nothing to cocaine. It is the agent for the seduction of our daughters and the demoralization of our young men. 1 should be a doctor if I could tell you all the evil that exists in it. Those who know what cocaine is and what its evils are,- are those who can hurt society most. If the chemists themselves do not give us a hand to assist in stopping the habit we can do nothing. There is no remedy. The able lawyer who represents the Pharmaceutical Association has asked for tine to be increased from $25 to $100. This would not help us at all. As it is now, cocaine is sold at $12 the ounce, and the profits made thereby are stupendous. A num-oer of doctors, who know all the evils of cocaine, must be prescribing it right and left. I wish legislation would be passed so that chemists would have to be licensed in the same way that alcohol dealers are, and licenses could then be refused to those who went on selling cocaine. It is a crime against society. I know of my own knowledge a doctor who says that of ten chemists he knows, six sell cocaine, one he is not sure of, and the remaining three do not. Those who sell it are nothing short of conspirators against society. The College of Physicans and Surgeons should take the matter up. It would be a good thing if chemists were not allowed to sell cocaine without taking the names and addresses of buyers, so that it would be easy, if desired, to find out what doctor had given the prescription. As to selling without prescriptions, that should be positively forbidden.
'For the love of a few dollars these men have thrown away the lives and futures of young men and young girls. I said formerly that those who put foreign matter or water into milk were criminals. Well, I find no word adequate for those who poison the very life blood of society. I am giving the alarm. I call upon parliament, upon the legislature and upon our representatives to do all in their power to stamp it out.'
The 'Montreal Star' of November 17, 1910, has an article headed ' Much cocaine is sold here in an illegal way,' and it gives an account of the existence of the traffic in Montreal. The Montreal ' Gazette ' of November 26, has a lengthy article containing this statement made by Judge Leet of that city:
I also think it should he made a criminal offence the same as opium is. That is to say, that it is such an offence for any person to open a shop where opium is smoked, and though the comparison may not be the same, it should he just as much a criminal offence for any one to aid another to snuff cocaine. The offence to he subjected to a fine or imprisonment or both, subject to the discretion of the judge. I intend to urge the necessity of making the illegal sale of the drug a -*riminal offence.
I may say that in the Bill before the House we have endeavoured to take cognizance of the suggestions made by the -authorities who have had to deal with this
particular question. The Ottawa ' Journal,' of July last, under the heading, ' The cocaine habit has a grip on Ottawa,' gives an account of disclosures made at a meeting of the trades and labour council of this city as to the existence of the cocaine traffic here. ' La Patrie ' of Montreal reports a sermon preached on this subject by His Grace Monseigneur Bruchesi, Archbishop of Montreal. In a communication received from Mr. Gifobard the secretary of the -Canadian Pharmaceutical Association, dated September 10, 1910, there is the following paragraph :
It will only he necessary to inform you that at the last meeting of our association held at Halifax in September, a strong resolution was adopted urging tbe federal parliament to recognize the imperative demand for legislation prohibiting or controlling the sale of all 'habit-forming' drugs and narcotics throughout the Dominion.
In framing such a measure, the wisdom and knowledge acquired through experience by the entire drug trade is at the disposal of the government, and in its subsequent administration loyal' support will be accorded. We, however, desire that such an Act should be a government measure, believing it of sufficient moment to command the attention of the cabinet.
I learned through the hon. member for Maisonneuve (Mr. Verville) that Mrs. Henderson, of Montreal, the probation officer of the Children's Aid Society had given this subject very careful study during the past year or two, and I wrote Mrs. Henderson asking if she could come to Ottawa and give the government the benefit of her investigations into the existence of the evil. The story told by Mrs. Henderson was a very sad one indeed. She reported that of her own observation she had met as many as fifty or sixty little girls and boys within the same day, in the city of Montreal, all of whom had acquired the cocaine habit to some degree. She spoke of little girls taken out of cocaine dens, and of young hoys whose whole futures had been blighted. It is a fact that this cocaine has been distributed amongst school children and that to-day in that city many a parent is having an anxious time for -his child because of the contraction of this habit. Not merely has it come to have a hold upon men; hut vicious people have sought this means of spreading the curse for reasons of their own, among the young as well as the old and have brought thereby unhappiness to many homes and many lives. I believe that to no person in Canada is so much credit due for the agitation against cocaine as to Mrs. Henderson, of Montreal, who has devoted her time willingly and persistently in an attempt to suppress this great evil. Without attempting to give the House what is contained in the file of correspondence I have here, I would like to indicate its na-

ture, and to show how general is the desire for legislation of this kind. All the letters I have before me have come as I have already said unsolicited. In no case except those mentioned, have I written to any one asking for information. But in the last few days these communications have come to hand from public officials and many other sources.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister seems to be giving himself unnecessary trouble in presenting those communications to us. I have not heard of any one opposed to the Bill. The Minister of Labour will soon be as bad as the Minister of Agriculture in taking up the time of the House.


George Gerald King: It may be true that my hon. friend has not heard of any proposed opposition to the Bill, and I hope that none will develop. But I have found in my limited experience in the House, that it is aifter the second reading of the Bill that opposition develops. I trust there will be no opposition when I am through. But I desire to read these communications in order to avert any opposition that might otherwise arise. Here is my communication from His Worship the Mayor of Montreal, in which he says:-
In acting energetically in this matter, you will be doing a great good to our citizens and to humanity generally.
The recorder of Montreal emphasizes in strong words the need of this legislation. Several aldermen of the city have also written. Then I have here a telegram received the other evening from His Grace the Archbishop of Montreal, in the following words:-
I have learned that you propose to pass a federal law to combat the disastrous effects of cocaine among the people, and above all among the young people. You have my entire approbation. One is unable to take too severe measures against 'a plague which is still more terrible perhaps than that of alcohol.
Then His Grace The Right Reverend Dr. Farthing, the Anglican Bishop of Montreal, wires as follows:

Delighted that you are giving hearty support to Cocaine Bill. Hope you will not rest until this much needed reform is accomplished.
There are several other letters from clergymen of various denominations speaking on behalf of their churches and on behalf of clerical societies and associations. Among these is a communication from the Protestant Ministerial Association of Montreal, one from Professor Welsh, of the Presbyterian College, and president of the Chinese Mission. In this communication Professor Welsh says:-
The use of cocaine is becoming so wides-spread, among young people as well as seniors, among foreign races (like Chinese, &c.) as Mr. KING.
well as Canadians, and the effects are so disastrous, that it is becoming a grave social and national peril.
The Rev. Dr. Gordon, of the Baptist Ministerial Association of Montreal, has written, and the following is contained in his letter:-
In view of" the sad consequences that follow the use of these drugs, the measure, in our judgment, cannot be too drastic.
The president of the Montreal Congregational Council, Rev. F. J. Day, has also written, and in his communication the following paragraph occurs:-
In view of the frightful havoc which is being wrought in Montreal by the use of this drug, and doubtless in many other places in Canada, your measure is a most opportune one, and I desire, both in my individual and official capacity, to express my great gratification over this move and the hope that the Bill will speedily pass into law.
The Rev. Dr. Young of Douglas Methodist Church, Montreal, writes:-
Unfortunately the use of drugs is not confined to the so-called poorer classes. It obtains amongst the people who should and do know better. Any measure tending to reduce the evil of this habit will be heartily welcomed by every lover of his country. Again I would assure you of the hearty sympathy and support of the church of which I am a pastor, and of the Montreal North District of the Methodist church, of which I have the honour to be chairman.


The Rev.  E. I.@: Hart, of the Dominion Methodist Church, Montreal, states:-
In connection with our personal work among the young men of Dominion Square and in the old brewery mission, I have met with many cocaine fiends. Two young men from our own Sunday School have fallen victims to the habit. Every effort has been made to save these fellows but thus far without results. They seem hopelessly lost-apparently without moral sensibility. ... I hope that the House may be convinced of the need of immediate action, for every day in Montreal new victims are being claimed by this monstrous vice.
In a communication from the Rev. Dr. Sparling, of St. James Methodist Church, Montreal, appears the following:-
You cannot do a greater service for the young humanity of our country. The havoc wrought by that evil among the boys and girls especially is awful. I write to express not only pleasure but the hope that no interests arrayed against this Bill will prevent its passage into law.
The Rev. Dr. Johnston, of the American Presbyterian Church, Montreal:-
These evils have already become so widespread in Canada that I am sure you will ''fwe the sympathy of all who truly love our country in your endeavours to restrict them.
Then there is a communication from the Roy. G. H. Baker, of the Temple Baptist Church, and president of the Baptist Young People's Union of the province

of Quebec; one from the Clerical Association of Montreal, signed by ten of the leading clergymen; a communication from the Local Council of the Women of London, Ontario. I may mention that the National Council of Women have taken up this subject, and have asked parliament to enact a measure similar to the one that is introduced. The Montreal Women's Club, particularly the committee on child labour, has asked for this legislation. I have also a communication from the University Settlement of Montreal. I may say in connection with settlement work, that I regard persons living in these university - settlements as exceptionally well qualified to pronounce upon the "heeds of legislation of this kind. Settlement workers are really sociological students, and are in the best position to express an opinion. The leter from the University Settlement * of Montreal reads as follows:-
In this part of Montreal, our workers find themselves always confronted by the problem; some of our older boys have fallen victims, and it is terribly easy for the younger ones to learn the habit; while the danger to girls is even greater. We are very grateful for a proposal which will greatly strengthen all the work for the welfare of the city children.
The Young Men's Christian Association, 'of Montreal, have urged the legislation. The Dominion Alliance for the total suppression of the liquor traffic has also made representations and from the letter of Mr. John H. Roberts, secretary of the Alliance, I take the following:
Being in the thick of the batjle for social and moral reform in this city, I have had many opportunities of realizing the ravages of this drug, and cannot but strongly urge upon you the necessity for drastic dealing with the evil.
Then the Pharmaceutical Association of the province of Quebec has. sent in a request for a federal Bill and state in this connection:
This Bill has the entire endorsation of every honest druggist in this province, and it is the hope of this association that the restrictions and penalties shall he made severe. Statistics in the United States show that only ten per cent of the drug imported is used legitimately, and no such condition of affairs is desired in Canada.
A federal Bill should receive the support of every man who is interested in the health and morals of his fellows. The insidious effects of this drug are antagonistic to both, and the ease with which it is used-merely by sniffing-constitutes its use as one of the most pernicious habits.
The Royal College of Dental Surgeons, of Ontario, in their communication, state:
Our profession are heartily in accord with the restrictions.
In addition to that I have had a large number of communications from individuals, and a petition signed by 429 persons of Montreal, including many
prominent citizens. I hope the House will not feel that in quoting these documents I have any other purpose in view than to show how many different classes of people feel the necessity for legislation of this kind. In the Bill which is before that House the government has. sought to take cognizance of the views expressed by those who have come in contact with actual conditions, by officials who have had to do with the administration of the law, and we have tried to frame a measure which will be effective if put upon the statutes. We have tried to bring down a Bill that will stamp out for good and all, if possible, the use of these haibit forming drugs for any other than scientific or medicinal purposes, and when used for these purposes, used in such a way as to safeguard the interests of all. I should like to again emphasize the fact that in this legislation Canada is not merely helping herself, but is helping also in a worldwide movement, because legislation similar to this is being presented to the congress of the United States at the present time, and as I have indicated by a reference to the International Commission which met in Shanghai a year ago, the governments of various countries may be expected to take similar action.
In conclusion let me say that this legislation belongs to the same class as the Bill I had the privilege of introducing the other evening which seeks to suppress the occupational disease known as necrosis. What we are striving for in legislation of this kind is the conservation of human life and of human well-being. A great deal has been said about the conservation of our natural resources; but natural resources are given to man for the use of man, and not for the destruction of human life. The first of all resources to be conserved are the health and life, moral as well as physical of our people, and it is to keep these intact, and to help to build up in Canada a strong, and happy, and a moral people, that the government brings forward this legislation, and does so in the belief that it will pass this House without any opposition.


Mr. DOHERTY.: I desire to say that with the object of this measure I have the most hearty sympathy. The minister has expressed a hope that the Bill will meet with no opposition, and I think he will not be disappointed. I do not think that, after all he has so eloquently said, and the powerful testimony he has thought proper to invoke in support of the measure, it is necessary that I should add any words for the purpose of enforcing the desirability of adopting a measure of this kind. I may say as living in Montreal, and being more or less in communication with a great many of the authorities whom the

hon. gentleman has cited, that I have had occasion to learn something of the very frightful and growing evils which, I am sorry to say, have prevailed in that city, as a result more particularly of the use of cocaine. So much so is that the case that when the hon. gentleman introduced his Bill dealing simply with opium, I was requested to take some steps to have added to it a provision respecting the use of this drug, cocaine, and I had even prepared an amendment in that sense when the minister anticipated me by remodelling his Bill. I am glad to express my sympathy with the purpose of his Bill, and, in so far as its principle is concerned, to give it my support. In going over it I have been struck with the possibility that some of the provisions do not precisely express the intention, or possibly go beyond the intention, but I understand that any verbal matter of this kind can more properly be dealt with when the Bill gets into committee than at the present stage.


William Sora Middlebro: Clause 3, which is the operating clause, I do not think, carries out the intention or desire that the hon. gentleman has in view. It reads:
Every person who imports, manufactures, sells, offers for sale, has in his possession, or takes or carries or causes to be taken or carried from any place in Canada to any other place in Canada, any drug for other than scientific or medicinal purposes, shall he liable, upon summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both fine and imprisonment.
That disregards totally the intent of the person doing this; that is to say a man might innocently carry a package of opium -it might not he marked ' opium '-from the station to the drug store or an employee might put it on a railway express train. Any person who touches it at all, quite innocently, would be liable under this Act and the magistrate would have no discretion but to fine and perhaps imprison him. The minister should insert the word ' knowingly ' before the word ' imports ' to meet that objection. I notice that in section 4 he says:
Every person who smokes opium, or who, without lawful or reasonabe excuse.
He puts this qualification in, and likewise in the next subsection:
Any person who, without lawful and reasonable excuse.
There is all the more reason in the operating clause of the Act that he should insert "the word 'knowingly'.


George Gerald King: I think we might consider a point of that sort when the Bill gets into committee. That very point was raised by me with the Justice Department when this Bill was submitted for consideration, but Mr. DOHERTY.
I was advised that perhaps it would be just as well to leave out the word knowingly.' It was represented that the judge would use his discretion in a matter of that kind. The trouble in the administration of Acts of this kind is that it is just such words as the one suggested that tend to nullify the real effect. However, I am quite prepared to leave myself in the hands of the Committee, and if members think it is advisable to make the change suggested by the hon. gentleman, to carefully consider it.


William Sora Middlebro: How can the judge exercise discretion when the Act says that, if you are found with opium in your possession you are guilty of a crime under this very section? If you carry or deal in it as an innocent employee you are liable to the penalties of the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 2: Definitions; (b) ' Opium ' means and includes crude opium, powdered opium, and opium prepared for smoking, or in any stage of such preparation.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: The only drugs mentioned in the schedule are cocaine, morphine and opium. Morphine and opium are practically the same thing. Would it * mean any other preparations of the same drug? For instance, take 'opium'; will that include opium, tincture of opium, morphine, paragoric and other preparations?


Mr. KINQ.: Section 14 will perhaps show why these other preparations have not been included. Section 14 gives the Gov-ornor in Council power to-
From time to time, add to the schedule of this Act any substance, the addition of which is by him deemed necessary in the public interest.
It was thought advisable, before filling out that list, to confer with different associations and medical men with regard to the drugs	that should be included in it. Additions I think, could be more advantageously made in that way, after getting expert advice from associations like the medical and pharmaceutical associations. Then in connection with our Conservation Commission we have an officer whose duty is in part to consider and advise upon questions of this kind. On the advice of such authorities the Governor in Council might add any preparations deemed necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You specify opium and morphine. These are two preparations of one drug. Would any other preparations of the same drug come under the provision of the law? Different preparations of the same drug in different forms produce prac-

tically the same effect. If you take laudanum it produces the same effect as morphine. If you take opium it also produces the same effect. Would it apply to all preparations of the same drug?


George Gerald King: It is just possible that there are some preparations which it would not be wise to include in that list, but any that medical experts thought it desirable to include the Governor in Council has power to add.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is not the question I asked at all. Legally, do you come under the next clause of the Act if you are carrying, or using, another preparation of the same drug than that which is mentioned in the schedule?


Mr. BLACK.: I would like to ask if the word ' opium 5 means opium itself, or does it include alkaloids of opium, or the various preparations made from opium and from the alkaloids of opium?


George Gerald King: That is practically the same question as that which the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) has asked, As the Bill now stands in its reference' to oppium in the interpretation clause,
' opium' includes 'crude opium, powdered opium, and opium prepared for smoking, or in any stage of such preparation.' But as respects other drugs the intention has .been to leave them for the present until an opportunity has been had to confer with medical experts as to what preparations, what alkaloids and what derivatives shall be included, and they may be added by order in council. There are a great many of them, but I understand it is rather a technical subject. The government can get the advice of well qualified practitioners, and they can add these preparations by order in council as may be necessary from time to time.


Judson Burpee Black: I think there are preparations and alkaloids of opium that need legislation to prevent their use by the people more than crude opium itself. In 47 years' experience in the practice of medicine I have found more people in eastern Canada suffering from the use of morphine than any other preparation of opium. I have found it taken by many people hypodermically, as well as by the mouth, and I think if legislation is required, as I am sure it is, to protect the people against the use of opium, it is equally required in the case of the alkaloids. Some persons drink laudanum. which is nothing less than opium and alcohol, but the great majority of people addicted to the opium habit take morphine, which is an alkaloid of opium, codeine, another alkaloid, and I have found individuals who prefer to drink paragoric or any other form of opium. If we are going to
legislate we really ought to include some alkaloids of opium.


George Gerald King: In the schedule appended to the Act, the alkaloids including morphine are specifically named and section 14 of the Bill gives the Governor in Council power, tc add any other alkaloids, from time to time, as occasion may require.


Charles Joseph Doherty: This provision, section 2, combined with section 14 to which the. minister has referred, seems to me a very dangerous kind of legislation. I have said that I have great sympathy with the purpose of this Act, but it is to be borne in mind that this is a criminal enactment, we are making additions to the criminal law and by these two combined sections we are handing over the power of this parliament to make the criminal law to the Governor in Council, because if this is carried, a mere addition to that schedule made by the Governor in Council will make the having or selling or dealing in or carrying the substance which may be added to that schedule a crime. I think this is undesirable legislation. It is going very far indeed for us to enact that the Governor in Council shall be free to make a crime, the possession of any substance whatsoever which in his judgment he may consider he ought to add. I have no reason to suppose the power would not be fairly and reasonably exercised. but at the same time, as. a matter of principle, it does seem to me very undesirable form of legislation.


Robert Laird Borden: I entirely agree in what my hon. friend for the St. Anne's division of Montreal (Mr. Doherty) has said. I would like to emphasize the point that the entire pharmacopoeia might be added bv order in council to this schedule, and the possession or sale of any article enumerated therein might be made a crime. We have had a great deal of legislation by order in council, sometimes of necessity or for purposes of convenience, but I think that this is the first time that criminal legislation by order in council has ever been attempted. A certain evil is said to exist. I have no doubt it does, 1 am thoroughly in sympathy with the purpose of and object of this Bill. I believe there is an evil and we should have a remedy, but the government in this legislation should be able to point out the extent of the evils and so frame the legislation that it will afford an adequate remedy for them. To go further and to have further criminal legislation enacted by order in coun cil is certainly a step beyond anything in my experience. Also it is going outside of the path of wisdom to adopt any such method of legislation. It is not probable 'that any evil at present unknown will spring up to any considerable or even appreciable extent before another session of parliament..

If by the time we are in session again it should become apparent to the minister that some further article should be added to this schedule, parliament in its wisdom can add that to the schedule, but in the meantime we should confine ourselves to those articles, the sale of which at the present time is injurious to the public interest, according to the evidence which the minister is able to submit to this committee.


George Gerald King: I am rather surprised at the attitude taken by my friend, the hon. the leader of the oppopsition (Mr. Borden). I remember when the House was considering the measure relating to the eight-hour day that hon. gentleman pointed out that all the legislation proposed could be enacted by order in council, and I gathered at that time that he was rather strongly in favour of legislation by order in council. I am not less surprised at the leader of the opposition saying he regards this as a departure from the path of wisdom and an entire innovation, in as much as this parliament in 1908, and I think with his consent, enacted a measure respecting patent and proprietary medicines in which exactly the same power was given.
17. The Governor in Council may make such regulations for giving effect to any of the provisions of this Act or in respect of the sale of any patent or proprietary medicine in stock at the time of the passing of this Act, and declaring the true intent thereof, in any case of doubt, as to him seems meet, and may also add to or remove from the schedule to this Act any poisons or potent drugs, as from time to time he deems expedient, and notice thereof shall be given in the ' Canada Gazette.'


Robert Laird Borden: Was there a criminal offence created?


George Gerald King: 3 Every person who violates the provisions of this section shall, for a first offence, incur a penalty of fifty dollars and costs, and for any subsequent offence a penalty not exceeding five hundred dollars and not less than one hundred dollars and costs, and the certificate of registration shall be cancelled.


Robert Laird Borden: As far as the remarks which I made"'the other day and which have been alluded to are concerned, I should think it would be apparent to the intellect of any person that there is a slight difference between what is purely a matter of administration and the creation of a criminal offence. If the Minister of Labour cannot understand that without argument and without discussion I shall not attempt to make him understand it. I would think it would be apparent to the humblest intellect in this country. The matter referred to the other day was one touching purely the employment of men upon works under the control of the various departments of the government. I said and I repeat that the object attained by the very limited legis-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
lation which was eventually passed by the committee could have been carried out by the government without the necessity of coming to parliament at all. It was of exceedingly limited scope. This is an entirely different thing, it is the creation of a criminal offence by order in council. If the minister can point out to me any reason why that should be done by order in council, instead of by legislative enactment, I am ready to consider it, but up to the present time he has not given any reason that I have heard, absolutely no reason at all. If the minister knows of any such substance now. add it to the schedule of this Bill. If he does not, leave the schedule as it is. If any substance of that character creates a detriment to the public interest between the conclusion of this session and the commencement of another, let us deal with that particular evil when we meet again. That seems to me to be reasonable and plain.


George Gerald King: The same reasons that were urged at the time the Act respecting Patent and Proprietary Medicines was before the House, apply to this case. It must be remembered that new preparations from these drugs are being made constantly, and it would seem to be preferable that cases of that kind should be dealt, with by order in council rather than that parliament should be troubled with them. Where it is possible to get expert medical advice upon these matters, it would seem to be desirable to give the governor in council power to frame the schedule from time to time, as may be necessary.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The effect of that would be that instead of having criminal legislation passed by and with the advice of parliament, we would be having it passed by and with the advice of certain medical experts. I have not read the Act to which the minister refers; but if parliament made one mistake under that Act, I do not think it is a very good reason why we should make a second mistake.
On section 3-importation, manufacture, sale or possession of drugs; penalty.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to move that the word ' knowingly ' be inserted after the word ' who ' in the first line of this section. This would render -liable to the penalties under this Act a person who commits the offence wilfully and knowingly, and would preserve the rights of innocent persons. Otherwise persons would be liable to the penalty who innocently carried the goods prohibited under this Act. The minister has accepted the idea I suggest by making an exception in the fourth section. A railway company or any person might innocently con-

vey the prohibited goods in'a box from one part of Canada to another. Yet it would be liable to a penalty under this section.


George Gerald King: I would draw the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that by section 16, section 4 does not come into force until the 1st of July, 1911. That is the section which relates to opium smoking, and the provision of section 16 is for the purpose of giving to people who are addicted to the habit a little more time in which to get rid of it. As to the insertion of the word ' knowingly,' I am informed that this is a favourite word with the legal pro-/ fession, but its insertion here, I fear, would make it practically impossible to secure a conviction, and would have the effect of nullifying the legislation. My hon. friend would hardly expect a judge to convict a man for simply having carried a box of opium without knowing what was in the box. The intention is plain enough.


William Sora Middlebro: But under this provision, he would he liable to the penalties provided. Of course, a judge, knowing the circumstances, would make the penalty merely a nominal one. But that is not the question. He would still be convicting an innocent man of a crime of Which he was not guilty. It is the intent which constitutes the crime, yet a man who carries a box of opium in all innocence, would, under this section, be guilty of this indictable offence.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The minister says that he does not suppose a judge would convict a man who was carrying a box of opium across the street and who did not know the contents of the box. Well, if the minister intends that a judge should only convict a man when he does the thing knowingly, there can be no harm in saying so. While I do not want to show any lack of deference to the legal authority -which my hon. friend says he has consulted, I quite agree with my hon. friend from Grey (Mr. Middlebro) that if you leave that section as it is, a guilty knowledge will not be essential to the offence. Compare this section with the one following. The one following provides that every man who, without lawful or reasonable excuse, has in his possession opium prepared or being prepared for smoking is guilty of an offence. Why not apply the same qualification to both cases?


George Gerald King: I have no objection and would move to insert the words ' without lawful or reasonable excuse.'
Section as amended, agreed to.
On section 4,
1. Every person who smokes opium, or who, without lawful or reasonable excuse,
has in his possession opium prepared or being prepared for smoking, shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding fifty dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months, or to both fine and imprisonment.
2. Any person who, without lawful and reasonable excuse, is found iu any bouse, room or place to which persons _ resort_ for the purpose of smoking or inhaling opium, shall be liable upon summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and costs, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month, or to both fine and imprisonment.


George Gerald King: I would move to add in the fifth line after the word ' dollars ' the words ' and costs ' which were omitted in the printing.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I would like to ask whether there is any intention in _ using different wording in the first section of section 4 compared with the other section. For instance in section 3 it is provided that every one shall be liable upon summary conviction ; and in the second subsection of section 4, the same formula is used. But in the first paragraph of section 4 it is provided that every one who, without lawful or reasonable excuse has ' in his possession opium shall be guilty of an offence *against this Act, and shall be liable on summary conviction. I do not see that it makes any difference whether you insert the words ' shall be guilty of an offence ' or not, but they are found in that subsection alone. In section 8 it is provided that when any one is convicted of an offence .against this Act, the magistrate may order, in addition to any other penalty, "that the drug be seized and destroyed. It might possibly be argued that inasmuch as the first paragraph of section 4 is the only place where a man doing a certain thing is guilty of an offence against the Act, a man who does all the other things mentioned in the other sections shall not be declared guilty of an offence against the Act. I would suggest that the words ' shall be guilty of an offence against this Act,' be stricken from the first paragraph of section 4, or else that you insert these words with regard to all the others so that it may be clear you are treating them all on the same basis.


George Gerald King: I am quite agreeable to that if the hon. gentleman desires it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is a fair enough argument to say that if you use a different form of expression in two different sections it must have been because you meant two different things, and there is no doubt that the intention of the Act is that all these things which are prohibited shall be placed on the same basis as being offences. I move that the words ' shall be guilty of

an offence against this Act and ' in line 3 be stricken opt.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Richard Blain: While the minister is devoting special attention in this Bill to what may be called a minor evil, I would remind him that he is not doing anything to pro-.hibit the greater evil of cigarette smoking in Canada. Not so long since petitions signed by thousands of inhabitants of this Dominion were presented to the government calling upon them to prohibit the sale, importation and manufacture of cigarettes and pointing out the great evils arising from the use of cigarettes. I notice that in the examination for candidates for the new navy a number failed to pass the physical test because of the excessive use of cigarettes. I suppose the Minister of Labour has taken the role of moral reformer for the government once held by the Minister of Agriculture, and I would remind him that if he expects to be a successful moral reformer he should deal with the evils which are staring him in the face, rather than seek for evils less glaring. I now invite the Minister of Labour to extend the scope of this Bill so as to prohibit the importation, sale and manufacture of cigarettes. If I remember well the Minister of Agriculture spoke in this House in favour of the prohibition of cigarettes, and while no doubt he is still of that opinion I notice that he is very inactive in urging on the government the introduction and passage of such legislation. If the Minister of Agriculture, as well as my new friend the Minister of Labour are sincere about improving the morals of the people, they will insert in this Bill an anti-cigarette. clause. I wish it to be clearly understood that I am in favour of this anticocaine Bill, but my protest is that the government has not extended its scope so as to make it an anti-cigarette Bill as well. I venture to say that where there has been one request to this government for the introduction of this legislation, there must have been a hundred requests for the prohibition of cigarettes. If the Minister of Labour is not to-night prepared to adopt my suggestion I trust he will give it his serious consideration, and that he will during the present session introduce legislation to stop the cigarette evil. I might remind him that petitions have come from the important county he represents asking for the prohibition of the importation, sale and manufacture of cigarettes, and I think he should pay heed to the recommendations of his own constituents. I once introduced an anti-cigarette Bill, but the strong masculine majority behind the government refused to adopt it, and so the evil grows and is growing. I may tell the government that Mr. DOHERTY.
this question will have to be dealt with by them, or by some other government, in the very near future. I hope my hon. friend will set to work and pursue energetically his role of moral reformer that he seems to have taken away from the Minister of Agriculture. He is a new minister now, and is quite energetic, and the people will look to him to deal with these other great moral questions. He will not require to apppoint a commission to find out whether they are evils. / All this information is in the hands of the government, and people are waiting for legislation.


George Gerald King: It is hardly necessary for me to reply as my hon. friend has already indicated to the committee the obvious answer to his own question. This legislation is to prohibit the improper use of opium and other drugs. Cigarettes and tobacco have not yet been considered a drug, and is advantageous to deal with only one class of subjects at this time, and under this Bill. I must, however, thank my hon. friend for directing the attention of the country to the fact that the government has not been indifferent even to the evil of cigarette smoking. As he has pointed out, candidates for the navy have been refused admission, some of them, on the ground that they had been addicted to the habit of cigarette smoking. Action of that kind on the part of the government cannot but have a good moral effect in the country. No doubt that has been the object in the mind of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries in enforcing a regulation of that kind.


Richard Blain: May I ask what we may expect from the government in respect to the cigarette question?


George Gerald King: That will receive careful consideration.


Richard Blain: That is an old story.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I agree with the minister that it would be scarcely proper to include cigarettes among these drugs. 1 would point out to the minister that it might be undesirable to put this power in the hands of the government. We might pass this Act just as it is, and the Governor in Council will still be free to add tobacco to that schedule. The Governor in Council are taking a power without any limit.
On section 5, dealing in drugs-penalty, prescriptions, penalty.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think you are proposing a very onerous obligation on medical men, and a very inconvenient one on patients.
Any person who neglects to make or preserve a proper record in a suitable book of the name and address of the physician, veterinary surgeon, dentist or druggist to whom he

gives, sells or furnishes any drug, and the date of such sale.
-is liable to a penalty. Usually the practice in our country is for medical men to write their prescriptions and to hand them in to a drug store, and these are generally kept in a book. It would he a serious task to copy into a book all prescriptions as they are written, they are usually kept on file. When once the medicine has been used up, the practice is to have the prescription repeated, if needed and the party gives a verbal order. According to my understanding of this section, it would be a violation of the law for a druggist to repeat that prescription, and also a violation for a medical man to order it unless a record is taken of it. You will see how much work and trouble that would entail. I think you would even compel the medical man to make a copy of a prescription that was sold to himself. Supposing a physician wants a medicine for instance, morphine, which he usually carries with him, he may want it in a hurry, but if it is not registered then the druggist is liable to a fine. I think that would be absurd. These drugs are carried by medical men in their cases, and as soon as the supply runs out they get their bottles filled again. How could that be done without their violating the law? This would not be workable without a great deal of unnecessary trouble and expense, both to the druggist and the physician.


George Gerald King: I regard the points to which my hon. friend has referred as being the essence of the section. Nearly every one who has communicated with us on this subject has pointed out the great necessity of placing all possible safeguards about the sale of these drugs, particularly in the matter of registration by a druggist of any sale, no matter to whom it is made,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister mean to say that it is necessary to register every purchase made by a medical man from a druggist of an article which he carries with him every day in the year?


George Gerald King: I would ask my hon. friend to consider an opinion that he will take as being more valuable than anything I could give myself. I have a letter from Dr. Chas. A. Hodgetts, medical adviser to the commission on conservation, who has been .appointed by the government for the express purpose of watching matters of public concern of this kind. Dr. Hodgetts says:-
Drugs of this class are really becoming more and more in common use and in the interests of public health all the safeguards it is possible for the Dominion government to surround them with should be promulgated and enforced.
Elsewhere he says:-
Another important matter is that of the repeating of physicians prescriptions containing opium, &c., by chemists. To do so should be made a criminal offence, punishable by fine or imprisonment, together with forfeiture of license by the offending chemist; and physicians who wantonly make use of these drugs should be brought within the criminal law.
Prom over ten years experience as a pharmaceutical chemist and 25 years as a physician, I can testify to the necessity of strong action on the part of the government, for as the evil of alcohol decreases that of the use of opium and similar preparations will increase and the evil of the latter is of the most insidious nature and therefore more difficult to combat.
I felt myself that there was a good deal in the nature of restriction about that clause. I consulted with some of those who have to do with the sale of these drugs and with physicians, and they were all agreed that if this legislation were going to be effective it could not be made too difficult for people to obtain these habit-forming drugs. It does not follow that because a prescription cannot be repeated except upon the instructions of a physician that the physician must himself give such instructions in person. I presume that the physician could indicate on the prescription when he gave it whether it was to be. repeated or not. It is pretty generally conceded that it should not be left to the discretion of the chemist to repeat a prescription when it is known that the habit is formed by virtue of this very practice of repeating prescriptions.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister has quoted an authority for whom perhaps a medical man would not have the very highest respect for the reason not that he is not a man of ability professionally but that he is not a practising physician.


George Gerald King: He says that he was a practising physician for 25 years.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Probably he was in the city of Toronto. It is one thing to be a practising physician in a large city but it is another thing to be a practising physician in the country, where you go out eight or ten miles to visit a patient, and where there is no opportunity of getting these _things except you send for them or take them along with you. That is a different thing entirely. I am speaking of an experience extending over forty years as a practising physician when I am at home. I have gone through every stage of the drug business, I have run a drug store as well, I know the usual practice in our country and I am quite sure that there is not an active, practising physician in the country to-day that would not, if this becomes law, violate it every week in the year


George Gerald King: Then I think he ought to be prosecuted every week in the year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. minister just shows how little he knows about lines which are not his own. There is no more danger of the respectable physician doing any harm with these- things than there is in his carrying a pail of cold water around. He is acting on judgment and common sense. He is not carrying around these things with any improper purpose, but for medicinal purposes, and he is responsible as a physician, as well as the minister is. He has to contend with difficulties about which the minister knows nothing.


George Gerald King: There is nothing to prevent a doctor from carrying around cocaine with him.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If he is going out in a hurry and he orders a small vial of morphine to be refilled it goes into the case that he must take along with him, and unless he stops and goes through all the routine of registration that is laid down here he will violate the law. It may be that he sends for some more morphine pills, as is very often done. He sends a party in from a place where he is engaged with a sick person at the house. I do not think that a messenger could carry it without violating the law. Then he is not there to register. The druggist might keep an account of it, but you impose upon the druggist a very onerous- and unnecessary amount of work. You have in another part of the Act a provision applying to the case where a medical man gives a prescription for a certain purpose, it may require to be refilled again, but that can't be done by the druggist without a violation of this Act. But I am speaking of the medical man engaged in the practice of his profession amongst sick people who requires these drugs from day to day and hour to hour, and who has to take this means of getting them because there are no drug stores near him. If such a law as this is enacted the result will be that hundreds of medical men will violate it over and over again, because they could not very well carry on the work of their profession without doing it. I do not think that any man should be subjected to that disability or danger.


George Gerald King: I am quite prepared to admit that if all physicians had the high sense of duty and the integrity of my hon. friend there would be no need for legislation of this kind whatever, but, unfortunately, as he only too well knows, there are in every profession men who are not a credit to it, and it so happens that in dealing with evils of this kind these are the men that the law has to get after. If my hon. friend can suggest any means whereby that class of men can be effectively prevented from Mr. SPROULE.
doing the public an injury and at the same time not necessitate the sort of restrictions that we have here I shall be very glad to consider his suggestion, but all the advice that I have received on this point goes to show that some rigid legislation of this kind is absolutely essential. I think my hon. friend does not understand the proposal when he says that a physician could not go about with this drug in his possession and administer it if necessary.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister misunderstood me in that. I did not say a physician could not carry it around with him as a medical man, because I think he could do that. But, I say that he could not send a messenger.


George Gerald King: I think that if he sent an order with the messenger he certainly would be entitled to have that order filled by the druggist, who would be obliged to keep a record which would show the transaction. On that point every one who has had to do with this evil is very strong in saying that such a provision should be insisted upon. I think there is no reason why it should not be.


William Sora Middlebro: Under the provisions of this section, would it not be possible for a medical man to send a prescription to a druggist and at the bottom of it to say: 'Give John Smith this dose as often as he requires it '? There is nothing in the Bill to prevent a druggist from giving it to a man as often as he requires it, or the medical man might give the prescription in the first place and telephone a repeat order afterwards, because the second authority does not require to be in writing. The Act could be overcome in that way quite simply. It is only intended to apply to the physician who would do that sort [DOT] of thing. Therefore, a physician who wants to do it will do everything to get over this section. He might write on the bottom of the prescription:	'Give John Smith as
many prescriptions of this as he likes.' Is the druggist legally entitled to make the further sales?


George Gerald King: I would think so.


William Sora Middlebro: The druggist would not be liable to any penalty?


George Gerald King: No, he would have the written order of the physician, and as long as he follows the written order he is protected.


William Sora Middlebro: Was it not the intention of the minister that the druggist should have a separate prescription every time?


George Gerald King: No, I cannot say that was the intention, it is that no druggist should repeat the prescription unless he had a direct written order. That might be done by separate orders, or by one general order".


William Sora Middlebro: It says here that he shall not fill the prescription more than once.


George Gerald King: Without authority.


William Sora Middlebro: That would mean that no prescription should be sold more than once, that he should have a new prescription from the physician every time.


George Gerald King: No, it means exactly what it says.


William Sora Middlebro: I think the druggist should not be allowed to sell for years on the one prescription.


George Gerald King: Perhaps the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) will give his opinion on that.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In the treatment of epilepsy or asthma, where spasms come irregularly, I give a prescription and instruct the patient to godo the druggist with the number and have it refilled when required.


George Gerald King: Would the hon. gentleman give a prescription to that effect with regard to morphine or opium?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In some cases they are portions of the prescription, and would *come under the penalties of this Act. That system is more economical for the patient, and saves the physician's time. Many prescribing physicians have a percentage coming to them on the prescription, but if it is refilled the physician gets no percentage.


George Gerald King: The only additional trouble under this section would be that the physician would have to indicate on the prescription how often he wanted it refilled. It would fix on him the responsibility of so ordering.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If that would be a compliance with the law it is the easiest matter to get over it, but a judge might take a different view.
On section 6, prohibition of export to countries prohibiting opium.


George Gerald King: I would like to have it of record that this section is prepared in consequence of the resolution passed at the International Opium Commission at Shanghai to which I have referred and of which the following is the wording:
That the International 'Opium Commission finds that each government represented has strict laws which are aimed directly or indirectly to prevent the smuggling of opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations into their respective territories; in the judgment of the International Opium Commission, it is also the duty of all countries to adopt reasonable measures to prevent at ports of departure the shipment of opium, its alkaloids, 81
derivatives and preparations, to any country which prohibits the entry of any opium, its alkaloids, derivatives and preparations.
I might add that it is understood Great Britain has recently suggested, in connection with an international conference whioh is to be held at The Hague next year, proposed by the United States, that in addition to the suppression of the opium traffic, the conference should deal with the suppression of morphine and cocaine. In that connection these sections may be important in their international significance.


William Sora Middlebro: In [DOT] the interpretation section of this Bill, ' export ' or ' exporting ' is defined as meaning and including 'the taking or conveying, or causing to ibe taken or conveyed out of Canada.' I would move that the words ' unlawfully or without reasonable excuse ' be inserted after the word ' person ' in the first line of section 6. Otherwise a person might innocently do that and yet be liable to the penalty under this Act.


George Gerald King: There can be no objection to inserting those words.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would there be any Objection to exporting opium to a country which did not prohibit it?


George Gerald King: This section only goes so far as to prohibit its exportation to countries which have prohibited the evil themselves. It was not thought (by the International Commission that it would be advisable for this section to go any further.
On section 9-drugs unclaimed for three months destroyed, subject to order.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I understand the purpose of this provision that the Customs Act shall apply is to make some provisions of that Act applicable in some way to this particular drug. But the person who reads the Customs Act does not find anything there to connect those provisions with this enactment, and, therefore, he will never discover that the Customs Act has any application to these things. Should there not be some connecting link between the two Acts in the way of some amendment to the Customs Act in order to enable people to discover in the Customs Act that those provisions of the Customs Act do apply to this Act?


George Gerald King: I think the reference here is to certain powers of search and seizure which are given to officials of the customs, and I may say that this section is similar to a section in the Canada Temperance Act. These words are incorporated simply to make it clear that these powers



would apply to any effort to smuggle any of these drugs as well as to the smuggling of other articles. It may ibe that we are duplicating legislation to a certain extent by this section, as I think these articles would be included in the list of tihe prohibited articles in the Customs Act, and once they appear there, it /would ibe made clear that these powers extended to them.


Charles Joseph Doherty: A man goes to the Customs Act to find what are the prohibited articles, and he does not find these articles among them, nor does he find them in any amendment to the Customs Act. Having done that, he may unwittingly do something to bring himself in contravention to the Customs Act. It would not be very difficult, when Acts of this kind are passed, to pass a small Act amending the Customs Act, so that there would ibe some connection between the two, which a man would discover on examining the Customs Act, and the Acts amending it. The average man would think that when he had gone through the Customs Act, 'and the amendments to it, and found out what it prohibited, he had done all that was required, and he would never dream of going behind the Customs Act and examining this one. You surely could not expect a man to go through ail the statutes in order to find out if in any particular one there is something affecting the Customs Act. The proper course would be to make an amendment to the Customs Act in the sense of this section.


George Gerald King: I think the suggestion a very good one, but as there are two or three Bills going through which affect the Customs Act, it would be better to deal wiui them all together at one stroke by a Bill amending the Customs Act.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have no objection, but certainly there should be some amendment to the Customs Act itself which would give information of provisions such as this.
On section 12,
No conviction, judgment or order in respect of an offence against this Act shall he removed by certiorari into any of His Majesty's courts of record.


Mr. McKENZIE.: I do not see why this remedy by certiorari should be removed.


George Gerald King: This was done on the advice of the Department of Justice.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I cannot understand why the Department of Justice should give such advice. It is an extraordinary provision. It is only found in very few criminal Acts. There must have been some case presented to the Department of Justice before it would give such advice. Tins provision takes away the right of removing


George Gerald King: a conviction by certiorari, which is a remedy very much valued by the British subject, and I do not like to see any of the old landmarks swept away without strong reason.
On section 14,
The Governor in Council may, from time to time, add to the schedule to thi-s Act any substance, the addition of which is by him deemed necessary in the public interest, and every order in council in that behalf shall be published in the * Canada Gazette,' and shall take effect at the expiration of thirty days from the date of such publication.


Charles Joseph Doherty: While I do not want to take up time, I feel it my duty to insist as emphatically as I can against the adoption of this section. By this Bill we are creating new criminal offences, and this section proposes to vest in the Governor in Council the power, by simply adding the name of any substance whatever to this schedule, to make the possession, the handling in any way of such substance a criminal offence. I most earnestly urge upon the minister the impropriety of parliament delegating this most serious power to the Governor in Council.
It is an exceedingly grave thing for parliament to take the practical omnipotence it holds as a legislative body and hand it over to be exercised absolutely by the Governor in Council; it is asking the council not an executive, but a legislative body. The answer that similar provision is incorporated in other legislation is not to me a conclusive reason. Some one has said by way of criticism of the English system of law resting upon precedent that under it, when a man once went wrong he forfeited forever after the right to be right. However that may be with English jurisprudence, there is certainly no such limitation on this parliament to follow precedent, and I would strongly suggest to the minister that he should strike out this section. We have one exceedingly bad precedent in the other Bill already cited, and I do not think we should let it go down from precedent to precedent. Iam of course strongly in favour of the legislation before us, but when we hand'oyer to the government the power to make innocent acts, crimes, it really means the abdication by parliament of the power the constitution confided to it and to it alone. Certainly, between the sessions of parliament there is hardly a sufficient time for a new evil to assume such vicious proportions as to call for legislation to suppress it, and that being so what possible public danger is there in leaving it to parliament each session to deal with the evils that may have grown up in the interval ? If we might expect new evils of this nature to spring up from day to day, there might be something to be said in favour of conferring

this power on the Governor in Council but one may very well hope that human ingenuity is not going to be so determinedly devoted to finding new methods of debauching the people of this country as to make it impossible for us to keep apace with it in legislation from session to. session. I speak with a good deal of earnestness in this matter, because I cannot conceive anything more undesirable in the way of legislation, and because each repeated instance will afford an additional argument for doing it again until we will have added to what are the legitimate functions of the Governor in Council, practically the enactment of the criminal law.


George Gerald King: In view of the opinion expressed by so eminent a jurist as my hon. friend (Mr. Doherty), it is with diffidence that I still urge the retention of this section. I should hesitate to do so on my own responsibility, but the point has been carefully considered by the law advisers, who have thought it desirable to give this power to the Governor in Council. After all whatever is done by the Governor in Council, so far as criminal legislation is concerned, would be done upon the advice of the Minister of Justice, who, it may be expected, will zealously safeguard the administration of the criminal law were there any probability of this power being abused. I would withdraw the section were there likely to be any doubt as to the intention of parliament in the matter, but in naming the three drugs, cocaine, morphine and opium, parliament makes it plain that it is legislating against what are known as habit-forming drugs, and it recognizes that as from time to time, one form of the drug is suppressed, a derivative of it may rapidly spring up which it is desirable to check as speedily as possible. We have similar provisions in the Patent Medicine Act and in the Act dealing with noxious weeds. The business of parliament is becoming more considerable every year. Larger and more important subjects are constantly coming to the fore and require all the time and attention that can be given them. We should seek to limit rather than add to the number of measures to be brought up for consideration. Suppose it were found that between sessions one noxious weed had cropped up somewhere that was not named in the schedule attached to the Act respecting noxious weeds. Also one new proprietary medicine not named in the schedule to that Act, and one drug not named in this, all of which should be legislated against. New Acts would have to be introduced in each case and with the growing business of parliament it would be found impossible in time to go into such detailed legislation. For these reasons, I think it is desirable to allow the section to remain.
81 i


Charles Joseph Doherty: The minister says that if it had not been for this clause there probably would have been additional substances included in this Bill whidh would have given rise to a great deal of discussion in parliament. I sympathize with any desire to relieve parliament of its burdens, but I do not think we should begin with the criminal law. I think it is objectionable to delegate this power of making men criminals to any authority other than parliament itself, however, great our respect may be for that authority, or for the gentlemen who occupy the office that entitles them to exercise that power.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to ask the minister if the government have discussed the question whether it was right to take from parliament power to declare what should be a crime?


George Gerald King: I would not say that that question had been discussed from the point of view my hon. friend suggests.


William Sora Middlebro: If it was pointed out to the Minister of Justice that the effect was to enable the Governor in Council to constitute a new crime, he might not consent to it.


George Gerald King: This Act is a specific Act for a specific purpose. These articles, cocaine, morphine and opium, are articles with regard to which every member of parliament has some knowledge, and the intention is that any power given to the Governor in Council shall relate to these articles or to any other compound or mixture of which they form part. From time to time new combinations of drugs may be made under different names and come into general use. Cocaine may be mixed with something else, and sold under a different niame, and the person selling it might seek to defend himself on the score that the drug is not mentioned in the schedule. It is to prevent any such evasions of the law that these general powers are taken.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It seems to be that this legislation gives absolute power to the Governor in Council to say that tobacco is a drug, and ought to be treated in the same ' way as these here mentioned. That would create a' situation which it is not intended to create, because evpry tobacco smoker would become a criminal. I presume alcohol might be treated in the same way.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would suggest, in view of the fact that the attention of the Minister of Justice has not been drawn to this provision, and he being an eminent legal man, the proper thing would be to let the committee rise, report progress, and submit the Bill to him in the meantime. Many people in this country have a high respect for his legal attainments, and would feel better

satisfied if he had recommended this legislation.


George Gerald King: I would hesitate to refuse the suggestion made to refer the matter to the Minister of Justice, but I might point out, that we could have the opinion of the Minister of Justice, before the third reading of the Bill. Moreover, the purpose my hon. friend has in mind might be obtained by an amendment which will rhake the intention clearer. For instance, instead of the words ' any substance named in the schedule hereto attached ' use the words ' and alkaloids, derivatives and preparations of any articles named in the schedule.' It gives the Governor in Council power to add to this schedule alkaloids, derivatives and preparations of any articles included in the schedule.


Charles Joseph Doherty: As long as parliament specifies the articles I am satisfied.


George Gerald King: If for the word ' substance ' is substituted the words ' alkaloids, derivatives or preparations of the articles in the attached schedule ' would that meet the objection of the hon. gentleman?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It would then _ throw upon the government the responsibility of going carefully into the matter to ascertain whether it was the part of wisdom to put any of these preparations on the list or not. For instance, take morphine; you could, by the same parity of reasoning put paragoric which is a comparatively harmless drug, and used very frequently, on the list. We will have to depend upon the Governor in Council to exercise common prudence as to what shall be put on the list and what not.


George Gerald King: Certainly. I propose that section 14 be amended by striking out the word * substance ' in line 5, and inserting in lieu thereof the words ' alkaloids, derivatives and preparations of the drugs named in the schedule hereto.'


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is chapter 5 of the statutes of 1908?


George Gerald King: That is the Act that was passed to prohibit the manufacture and sale of opium. The manufacture of opium has been suppressed in this country. There are only two sections in this Act, one of which relates to a period of six months, which has already, expired, and, therefore, it is not in force at the present time, and the other is covered by the provisions of the sections which we have already passed.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You do not allow the manufacture of opium at all?


George Gerald King: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, I do not know that it is the height of wisdom to prohibit it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 


George Gerald King: Parliament has already done it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It may have done it, but parliament has done many things that are not wise in the judgment of some. There are many things in our country which we could make out of the products of our soil, and I do not think it would be wrong to manufacture anything that we require for medicinal purposes	or the	arts.Mr.	KING. This Act	all	through
exempts any of these processes when they are for medicinal or scientific purposes.
Mr.	SPROULE.	Even	the	manufacturer?


George Gerald King: Yes. The old Act passed in 1908, prohibited the manufacture of opium	absolutely.	Under	this	Act the
manufacture would be permitted if it were shown that it was for scientific or medicinal purposes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think that is as it should foe. Opium is made out of poppies, and poppies will grow here as well as in any other part of the world. There is no trouble at all, if you go into it extensively enough, to manufacture a commercial article that is used extensively in the country. I do not know why any one should foe prohibited from the manufacture of an article of that kind.
On the schedule,


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I cannot understand why this list was not made larger. We have many drugs which are used to-day which are just about as dangerous as cocaine or opium. For instance, there are acetanilid, phenacetin, p'henalgin, amonial and a number of those coal tar derivatives that injuriously affect the user and produce much the same results as does cocaine. In the ordinary drug stores you can buy these headache wafers containing acetani-lid phenacetin, and phenalgin. They affect	you just the	same as cocaine, and very much the same	as
morphine. Those who use them contract the halbit, and there is no prohibition under this Act for the sale of them. I do not see the wisdom of including in the schedule such .a limited number of dangerous drugs as we find in this one, and" leaving so many out that are being injuriously used the same as cocaine and morphine.


George Gerald King: My hon. friend will see that it is limited inasmuch as it is left to the Governor in Council to add any of these drugs if it should deem expedient to do so. This is one of the reasons why the schedule is made small. But, there is a special reason for naming these drugs inasmuch as they have all been demonstrated to foe dangerous habit-forming

drugs* In regard to the others which the hon. gentleman has named some of them may be such, ibut I tihink there are others that he has mentioned that would hardly come in the same class as cocaine and morphine.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Will the hon. gentleman tell me one?


George Gerald King: I should think that phen-aeetin, speaking oS-hand, is not as bad as some of the others.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, it certainly is and it is used very much.


George Gerald King: I know it is used, but I do not think we have many phenaeetin, victims.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I would not expect that the minister in his line of life would come in contact with them, Ibut if he would speak with practical medical men who have been engaged in practice since this drug came into use they would he very likely to tell him that in their experience they have met quite a number of them. As a practising physician I know many who use these drugs simply because of the pleasant sensation, the peculiar soporific effect they produce, until they have become quite strongly addicted to them. Some of these are stimulant narcotics, and others sedative narcotics, but many of them produce much the same effect as cocaine.
Bill reported.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Am I correct in understanding that the minister will submit this Bill to the Minister of Justice for his opinion?


George Gerald King: Certainly, but I thought the amendment covered it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think so too, but the House would be better satisfied if it were submitted to such an eminent authority as
the Minister of Justice for his opinion as to the wisdom or propriety of allowing the Governor in Council to amend the criminal code in this way.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If this is to be submitted to the Minister of Justice I hope it will not be thought that I have been saying this could not be legally done. I have simply said that it was not advisable to do it.



ADJOURNMENT-SUPPLY OF STERILIZED WATER IN PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.
Mr. PUGSLEY.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you and the members of the House what has been done to secure a supply of safe drinking water for the use of
the members and officials of the House. The department has had installed in the building a process for sterlizing the water. This is done by a machine which is manufactured by the Forbes Sterilizer. Company. Since the machine has been installed and this process adopted we have had samples of the water tested. On the 11th of this month we sent 11 samples, which were taken from the sterilizing apparatus and from each of the faucets on the different floors, both on the House of Commons and the Senate side. The report is that these samples failed to show any growth and that the water supplied by the Forbes Sterilizers may now be considered perfectly safe. It is not desirable to take water from the tap in this chamber though I think it has not been com-ipletely turned off. We have on each floor a tap which carries the water direcuy from the cooler. The water is sterilized and then cooled so that it is quite agreeable for drinking. I think it is not desirable that any ice should be used in the water, but I trust that arrangements may be made by which the vessels containing the water may be surrounded with ice so that it may be kept even cooler than at present. The report we have is that the water is perfectly safe. Of course it is very necessary that care should be exercised by the officials of the House, and this morning a letter was sent to the clerk of the House as follows:
Dear sir,-In view of the present eqidemic of typhoid in the city of Ottawa it is necessary that the utmost care be taken in connection with the drinking water. I enclose a copy of a memorandum prepared for me by the Superintendent of Dominion Buildings stating the steps recently taken by this department to prevent such a contingency in the parliament buildings, and I would suggest that arrangements be made so that only sterilized water be used in the receptacles in the buildings.
(Signed) J. B. HUNTER,
Deputy Minister.
I have not seen the Sergeant at Arms, but I spoke to the deputy sergeant and he informs me that the pages have been instructed to take water only from the taps that lead from the sterilizer, so it is quite safe to send for water.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the process?


William Pugsley: I understand the water is distilled.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: One analysis is not always safe to rely upon.


William Pugsley: We had eleven samples analysed.


Mr. ROCHE.: Was the water examined before being sterilized?


William Pugsley: The water in its ordinary state had been examined and it was found to contain some germs which might be objectionable.


Charles Joseph Doherty: What business will be taken up to-morrow?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) will resume the consideration of his supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.15 a.m., Friday.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, January 27, 1911.