1911-03-06

Mr. P. E. BLONDIN (Champlain).: (Translation.) Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege to present the motion of which notice has been given two days ago to the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) and to the hon. member for Richelieu.
Neither the hon. minister nor the hon. member will be surprised at my mov". because they already know since a long time the facts which I will communicate to the House.
I would have been particularly grateful to them if, during the long months that have elapsed since, they had undertaken, themselves, as is was proper, to avenge the honour of the minister and the reputation of the member. But they
have done nothing. They have kept about the whole thing a very long silence which I would dare to qualify as incriminating. I for one cannot allow this silence to last longer without feeling myself as conniving, or at least as.failing seriously in my duty as a member of this House.
I shall read in English the declaration and the motion, and with your permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall read in French, in their original form, the affidavits which have been given me. I have 'added also, since the notice I have given, the years 1908 and 1909 to the year 1910, because new affidavits have come to me.
I,	Pierre Edouard Blondin, a member of Parliament for the electoral district of Champlain, in the province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, declare that I am credibly informed, and I believe that I can establish by satisfactory evidence:
10. That in the course of the years 1908, 1909 and 1910, irregularities, abuses, frauds, malversations and robberies have been committed in the shops and stores of the government of Canada at St. Joseph of Sorel and in the city of Sorel, in the electoral district of Richelieu;
20. That barrels aud tins of paint and other goods of this nature have been illegally and fraudulently taken and carried away from the said stores and shops and transported to the house of Mr. Adelard Lanctot then and now a member of the House of Commons of Canada, for the electoral district of _ Richelieu, which house was then being built on George street, at Sorel above mentioned, and ready to be painted;
30. That with these goods and paint, paint-works, decoration and varnish works, have been done by the employees of the government of Canada under the supervision of the painters' foreman employed by said government at the said jilace, at the government's expense and during the hours supposed to be devoted to the government and for which said employees were paid by the government, these men registering each day as if they had really worked for the government, and this during weeks and months; the materials and time, thus furnished, are valued at about one thousand or twelve hundred dollars;
40. That said goods were so fraudulently appropriated to, and said work so fraudulently done at the expense of the government of Canada for the benefit of the said Adelard Lanctot then and now a member of the House as aforesaid with his knowledge, assent and approval, the said Adelard Lancjtot abusively and fraudulently profiting at the public expense and to the public detriment by bis position of member of the House;
I found the belief I have just expressed upon affidavits which I desire to read and produce in support of the motion I am about to make:
(Translation).
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
District of Richelieu.
I, the undersigned, Alfred Douaire, painter, of the city of Sorel, 51 years of age, solemnly declare:

That I have been in the employment of the federal government at its shipyards situated at Saint-Joseph de Sorel, from January, 1906, inclusively to the 5bh of November, i910, as painter under the orders of J. Bte. Page, foreman of the painters department at the said shipyards, during the last two years;-that during these two said years, principally during the last year, and especially in July, August and September, 1910, I have been requested by the said J. Bte. Page to go to Sorel, at the house of Mr. Adelard Lanctot, M.P., then being built on George street, in order to paint, cement, polish and varnish, &c., &c., the said house and that, as it was well understood, after having registered at the shipyard as present and working on behalf of the government, and my departure each morn-in!.' was to be from the said shipyard.
That, as a matter of fact, I regularly registered and punched as previously mentioned, and that in conformity with my orders I left the shipyard each working day and went, as above stated, during the months of July, August and September, 1910, to the said Lanc tot house, where I have worked at the painting, varnishing and staining of the said Lanctot house.
That this work was also done in part by *Messrs. Theodore Emond, Edmond Brault, Adelard Letendre, Alberique Letendre, Omer Page, Arthur Trempe, Louis Paul, Adelard A lie, all painters, employed at the time by the said government, and on the working hours due to the government and each of them having punched at the same time as myself as aforesaid.
That during the time that work was going on, the said J. Bte. Page and Adelard Lanctot, M.P., were visiting the job from time to time, looking at the progress of the work, Page giving orders for having some paint brought from the shipyard and also fo.r the execution of the work, and that, many times to the knowledge and cognizance, and in the presence of the said Adelard Lanctot,-this gentleman knowing also where the paint came from and that the work was being done by employees of the government whom . he was seeing often and often at work.
That_ the said Adelard Lanctot never spoke of paying these painters, and in fact was not paying them, but they were regularly paid their salaries by the government at each pay day, as if they had worked for the department.
That the above mentioned persons who have worked with me at this painting have given to that work, some four weeks, and others from four to ten weeks.
I positively declarethat Mr. Adelard Lanctot knew at the time that the paint and other goods which were used in the painting of his house, were coming from the said shipyard of the government; 2. that this work was done by the then regular employees of the government who were paid, for the time they were doing that work, by the government itself, and that for that purpose the time of each employee was punched as employee of the government.
On the seventh day of December, 1910, at 10 p.m., Mr. Alfred Lavallee, lumber merchant, of Sorel, came to my house at Sorel, asking Mr. BLONDIN.
me to go immediately to the house of Mr. Adelard Lanctot, at Sorel, who desired to see me without fault; I went immediately and found Mr. Lanctot who was waiting for me and who, after the ordinary salutations, showed me and read me the solemn declaration which I had given during the said month of December to the same purpose as the present one, and spoke to me the following words:-* Is it you, Mr. Donaire, who gave this affidavit?' I answered: 'Yes.' He added: ' You have signed it?' I answered 'Yes.' He asked me if I would see Albert Thibaudeau and try to lay my hand upon certains papers relating to this affair, which he did not like to see circulating. I answered that it was not easy to get hold of these documents, principally the affidavit dated at Sorel. the 30th of November,, 1910. Mr. Lanctot added: ' I will look to that myself, and I will try to get hold of them. Mr. Lanctot wanted me to change my course of action, lie offered me a position under the government, which I refused. He told me that if some one was troubled about that affair, principally Mr. J. Bte. Page, I would be treated the same way he would be. I answered that I was not afraid. Before leaving, I told him that the affidavit which lie had in his hands, and which he .got, I did not know from whom, was true and signed by me in perfect knowledge and without any outside influence, as
I gave the present one.
, And I make this solemn statement, believing it conscientiously to be true, and knowing that it lias the same force and effect as if it was made under oath, under the witness law of Canada, and I have signed.



ALFRED DOUAIRE,

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me, the undersigned, at Sorel, the first of March, 1911.

[Stage Direction]
(Translation).
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
District of Richelieu.
I, the undersigned, Henri Proulx, painter, of the city of Sorel, aged 34, do solemnly declare :
That I have been in the employ of the Dominion government at its shipyards situated at St. Joseph de Sorel, from February 16,
1909,	to November 5, i19i10, as_ painter and under the orders of J. Bte. Page, head of the painting department.
That in the course of the month of August last (1910) the said J. Bte. Page instructed me to proceed, in company with Omer Page and Henri Paul, two government employees, painters like myself, working under his orders at the time, to proceed to the paint shop^ of the department for the purpose of taking the paint there, the property of the government, and carrying it to the said Lanctot house at Sorel, with instructions in going through Sorel to follow Augusta street so as to avoid being noticed, as would have been the case bad we gone directly to the spot.
That accordingly I proceeded in August,
1910,	together with the said Omer Page and Henri Paul, to the paint shop, and that there we loaded ourselves with boxes, barrels, and packages'of paint neither weighed or measured, as well as of oil and varnish and thence

carried our load of wares to the said Lanc-tot's house .in Sorel, following Augusta street, so as to 'let people believe that we were coming from the shops in Sorel, in accordance with the instructions received from the said J. P. Page; that on reaching the said Lanctot house we deposited on ithe floor our three loads of paint, in the presence of the said Adelard Lanotot, who was then at the said house. There Messrs. Theodore Emond, Edmond lirault, Addlard Letendre, Alberic Letendre, Omer Page, Arthur Trempe, Louis Pauli, Adelard Alie and Alfred Doualre, all at the time in the employ of the government, as painters, under the orders of J. B. Page, their chief, with the knowledge of the said Adelard Lanctot, who knew these men, who knew where they were supposed to he working. took hold of the paint and utilized it to whitewash the inside and outside of the Lanctot house, while every morning having their cards punched so as to get their pay from the government, which as a matter of fact they did get, and this again to the knowledge of the said Adelard Lanctot who was aware that the government was paying these men _ for the time they had spent working in his house.
I know personally that morning, noon and night the said Page proceeded with me from the Lanctot house to where the punch was located and that he punched on his own account, and that as long as the work lasted. It is also to my knowledge that in the course of the said work, Cuthbert Champagne, another government employee, and keeper of the punch, had instructions to punch on behalf of the aforesaid painters who did not see to it themselves, in the course of said work, at the said Lanctot house, and that indeed he punched once for me before my arrival, stating: your card is punched as well as the others. Besides, I declare that the said J. Bte. Page, while I was present, addreissel the said Cuthbert Champagne, then close to the punch, and inquired from the .said Champagne, keeper of the punch, whether he was careful to punch regularly on behalf of the men working at the time at Mr. Lanctot's. Mr. Champagne having answered in the affirmative, Mr. Page declared himself satisfied.
I dclare lastly that on the afternoon of the twelfth day, January 6, 1911, I was requested by a friend of Mr. Lanotot to proceed to the letter's office. Accordingly, I wTent and found there Mr. Lanctot, Mr. Joseph Proulx, of Sorel, and Mr. Napoleon Proulx, of St. Vic-teire, two of my uncles, and here is what happened:	'Mir. Adelard Lanctot, M.P., inquired : ' Mr. Proulx, I heard that you weve anxious to get your position; I can have you reinstated provided you 'sign the paper which I have prepared and which I shall read to you. The grist of the paper he then read, was as follows. Hon. minister, I request that you put aside the statement which I signed on November 10, 1910, which you have in your hards. I signed that paper when in a passion and after thinking over it I realized that some things which I had included had no foundation in .fact, and that in the interest of the party as well as in my owTn personal interest such a course would be preferable, and at the same time I beg to be pardoned by you and by the member.' Having ascertained what use the member Lanctot intended to make of this letter, I answered that it was useless to read
any more. ' You should have a better knowledge of the Proulx family; we are not of the kind who sign on Monday and withdraw their signature on Tuesday. I want you to hear in mind .Lauctot that all the affidavits declared and signed by me will remain exactly as on the day I signed them.' Then, Joseph Proulx, ticket agent addressed Lanctot as follows:	' You should not have a
grudge against my nephew, but instead
against those d

 fools on the other side
whose inspirations you follow.' And the discussion on that subject lasted a couple of hours.
And I make this solemn declaration believing it conscientiously to he true and knowing that it has the same force and effect as if it had been made under oath under the Evidence Act of Canada, and I have signed, HENRI PROULX. Declared before nue, undersigned
at Sorel, on this 1st day of
March, nineteen hundred and
eleven.

[Stage Direction]
Notary.
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
District of Richelieu.
I, the undersigned, DieUdonne Peloquin, joiner and contractor of the city of Sorel, do solemnly declare:
1.	That I am 34 years of age and that I have never obtained any contract, or favour, or employment from any of the political parties, and that I am independent of them.
2.	That, to my personal knowledge, during the past five or six months, several men employed in the Dominion government shipyards situated at St. Joseph de Sorel, accused each other of thefts and plunderings of cement, lumber, iron, paint, and especially of time as government employees working for private persons while in the departmental pay; the whole being evidenced by several solemn declarations which have been put in my hands in the course of the last two or three days for the purpose of enlightening me and inducing me to request an investigation.
3.	That in the course of November last and of December instant politicians, officials of the department high and low, accusers and accused, have travelled to Ottawa; one of the storekeepers has been suspended, then reinstated as he threatened to tear asunder the curtain which covered many a deed. Finally calm was restored, and it wa.s rumoured that matters would be set right, the accusers giving way as a rsulit of promises of employment, and the accused being compelled to pay back the value of the goods and time received. Hence an unforeseen appraisal for the purpose of determining the value of certain things which parties interested put down at $292, and which people w'ho have no interest in the matter figure at $800 or $1,000, or even as high as $12,000.
4.	That basing myself on the written and oral statements which have been made and communicated to me, and on rumours deemed trustworthy here, I believe that the government, within the last two years, must have suffered a loss of over fifty thousand dollars, through fraud, embezzlement, etc.
5.	That to my personal knowledge painters
[Stage Direction]
in the employ of the government have painted the inside and outside of the house of our Dominion member of parliament, Mr. Ade-lard Lanctot, who was aware that such work was being carried on by these men, at his house situated on George street, in the city of Sorel; one of the best finished and the best painted in this city, and the painting of which is estimated at prices varying several hundred dollars.
And I make this solemn declaration believing it conscientiously to be true and knowing that it has the same effect and force as if it had been made under oath, under the Evidence Act of Canada.
DIEUDONN.E PELOQUIN. Declared before me at Sorel,
December 29, 1910.

[Stage Direction]
Notary.
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
District of Richelieu.
I, the undersigned, Andronique Senecal, carpenter and joiner, of the city of Sorel, agd 45 years, do solemnly declare:
1. That J am employed at the Dominion government shipyards, situated at St. Joseph do Sorel, at the present time, and have been so employed for the last nine years; that on or about the third of May, nineteen hundred and nine (1909), Oscar Champagne, a man iu the employ of the same government, in the same place, as time-keeper, summoned me from .my work to his office and instructed me tc proceed at once to Sorel, to the house of Adelard Lanctot, then in course of construction on George street, that there I would find Lanctot waiting for me and would he _ told what to do. That accordingly, in compliance with that order from Champagne, I left forthwith, taking with me two ferry tickets, the property of the government, which Champagne handed to me to reach the place of the said Adelard Lanctot at Sorel. On my way I saw Mr. Lanctot at the Hotel Quebec, notwithstanding which I proceeded to his house and. waited for him until the following day. In fact, on the following day, I met Mr. Lanctot at his residence about nine in the morning, and told him that Mr. Champagne had sent me to him for some work that was to be done.
Mr. Lanctot then instructed me to work about the house on his property, repair.;" and resetting the fence which surrounded it; I got to work at once and worked three days iu succession without interruption. I was paid by the government for these three days' work spent at Mr. Lanotot's; I was working under the latter's instructions and he must have seen to have my card punched by obliging bands, for I was paid .in full as usual.
And I make this solemn declaration, believing it to be conscientiously true and knowing that it has the same force and effect a ; if it had been made under oath under the Evidence Act of Canada,
And I have signed.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me the undersigned at Sorel, on this 1st day of March, nineteen hundred and eleven.

[Stage Direction]
Notary.
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
District of Richelieu.
I, the undersigned, Napoleon Laroche, formerly painter and at present joiner, iu the parish of St. Joseph do Sorel, do solemnly declare:
1.	That in .the course of the winter, spring, summer and parit of autumn of last year, 1910, I was employed at the Dominion government shipyards, situated at St. Joseph de Sorel, as painter and under the orders of J. Btc. Page, head of the painting department.
2.	That .to my personal knowledge, in the course of that year, 1910, a complete staff of painters, then employed, as myself, by the government and paid by the government, was painted, varnished and decorated the inside and outside of the house of Mr. Adelard Lanctot, M.P., for the electoral district of Richelieu, then in course of construction on George street, in the city of Sorel.
3.	That, as a matter of fact, Messrs. Omer Page, Louis Paul, Alfred Dona ire, Theodore Emond, Edmond Brault, Octavien Laferniere, Arthur Trempe, Adelard and Alberic Leten-dre, all painters employed and paid by the government and on government time, have painted, varnished and decorated the inside and outside of the said Lanctot house, and that with that object in view they worked almost uninterruptedly from about the end of June up to late autumn; work which to the best of my knowledge I estimate to he worth between twelve and thirteen hundred dollars.
4.	That these persons registered or caused themselves to be registered as being present and working for the government, since they came up at every pay-day for the purpose of getting their money, and indeed were pail by the government for time which they supplied to a private party.
And I make this solemn declaration, believing it conscientiously to be .true, and knowing that it has the same force and effect as if it was made under oath under the Evidence Act of Canada.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me at St. Joseph
de Sorel, on this 28th day of
December, nineteen hundred
*and ten.

[Stage Direction]
C.S.C. for the District of Richelieu.
Canada,
Province of Quebec,
District of Richelieu.
I, the undersigned Herminegilde Lambert, of the parish of St. Joseph de Sorel, aged 37, d'i solemnly declare;
1.	That I have been in the employ of the Dominion government at their shipyards, situated at St. Joseph de Sorel, from 1900 to 1910, inclusive, that is to say ten consecutive years, the first four years as caulker, and the six last as overseer of labourers. I have given up that work on December 28 last, and have not taken it up since, although I have been offered an increase of salary of fifteen cents per day.
2.	That while I was thus in the service of the said government, especially within the last three years, Mr. Alex. Gendron, then and
Pierre Édouard Blondin: still of the labourers' department, head man, and consequently my superior, has often instructed me to send sometimes one, sometimes two and sometimes three of the men under my orders and in my gang: to work at Sorel for private parties, especially for Alfred Raril and Oscar Champagne, two high officials at the time, and still in the same department, and for A del a rd Lanotot, M.P., to carry on works and repairs at various buildings.
3. That on receiving these applications, I sent the number of men required to work for the benefit of these persons, and when each foreman was called to give to the head foreman the time of these men, I said to Mr. Alex. Gendron: ' I have one, or two or three men who have been working at .Sorel for the above mentioned/ Then Alex. Gendron when he was present, and Adolphe Joubert, his clerk representing him, when the latter was away, would say: 'Do not mention the absences which go unnoticed; these men have punched and will be paid by the department/
1. That Mr. Oscar Champagne, employed ii the government stores, has had turf taken ai bv. Joseph s taken to Sored to grade Ms property and embellish the grounds around his house at Sorel, which work was done bv Michel Rambert and Andre Cotnoir, two men in the employ of the government, whc worked between three and four days, while at the same time having their cards punched eve-ry morning and getting their pay from the government, at the knowledge of the said Oscar Champagne.
5- That in the course of the summer of 1910, ithat same Mt. Oscar Champagne caused tc be drawn, by government teams and by men ill government pay, iron pipes taken from the .government and had these carried bo Sorel -and utilized for a tunnel in a stream goin* through his property, and that this whole -expenditure has been supported by the "ov-ernment, which is the looser in this last instance of about $200. That to my knowledge instructions have -been given to the men en-tiusted with the drawing of the pipes to do so m such a way that the great Chief Papi-neau should have no knowledge of it. As a matter of fact, the drawing was effected about seven o clock in the morning previous to Mr. 1 apinean s arrival.
6.	That in every instance where time or material was thus embezzled, urgent departmental work was interfered with.
7 That if, to the losses aforementioned, are added those inflicted on the department in the shape of thefts of wood, iron, cement, etc., I may say that these aggregate an enormous amount.
8 I am free to acknowledge that Mr. L. G. Papineau (great chief) of the department, is an honest man, but I will 'add that either through lack of sternness or some o-ther cause, ho finds himself unable to keep in the right path certain subalterns who are not very scrupulous in the handling of the punch. That without the benefit of an investigation for the purpose of finding out those actually at fault, the country will still suffer considerable losses.
And I make tMs solemn declaration, believing it conscientiously to be true and knowing that it has the same force and the
same effect as if it had been made under oath under the Evidence Act of Canada.



H. LAMBERT.

[Stage Direction]
Declared before me, the undersigned, at Sorel, on this 18th day of February, 1911.

[Stage Direction]
Notary.
Canada,	*
Pi evince of Quebec,
District of Richelieu.
I, the. undersigned, Alfred Douaire, painter, of the city of Sorel, aged 51, do solemnly declare that I have been in the employ of the Dominion government at their shipyards, situated at St. Joseph de Sorel, for several years, especially during the years 1909, 1910, and 1908; that, in the course of the month of October, 1908, J. Bte. Page, then employed in the same yards as head of the paint department, instructed me to go and paint the house of Mr. Adeiard Lanctot, member for the county of Richelieu, at the time and still representing the said county, a house which he had rented from Mr. Bruno Leclair, on Roy street, in the city of Sorel.
That, as a matter of fact, following my instructions, I went to paint the said lodgings, then occupied _ by the aforesaid Mr. Lanotot, tenant, and did so at the knowledge and in the presence of the said Adeiard Lancitot, and on government time, as an employee of the said government.
That I was paid in full and without any dockage by the government for the time I tad spent painting the said Lanctot house, and never did Mr. Lanotot, or any body else on his behalf or in his. name offer to pay me a cent for such work effected for his benefit, and which lasted two or three days.
That, besides, Mr. Lanctot knew that I was then the employee of the said government and that I was drawing my salary from the said government for the work thus effected in his said house.
And I make this solemn declaration, believing it conscientiously to be true and knowing that it has the same force and the same effect as if it had been made under oath under the Evidence Act of Canada.
And I have signed,
ALFRED DOUAIRE. Declared before me, in the city of Sorel, on this 5th day of March, nineten hundred and eleven.

[Stage Direction]
Notary.
Mr. Speaker, the charges which I have Just read are sufficient, it seems to me, to allow me dispensing with making any comment. I venture to hope that the government will grant the motion which I have the honour to introduce:
That, under the circumstances, I move that the declarations and matters above set forth bo referred to the Select Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of this House to inquire fully into the same, with power to send for persons, papers, records and such articles as may be necessary for such investigation, and to examine witnesses upon oath or affirmation, and that the oommitte do re-
[Stage Direction]


pert in full the evidence taken before them and all their proceedings on the reference and result of their inquiries.
I even entertain the hope that the hon. member for Richelieu will join hands with me in requesting that the government grant this inquiry so that he may be in a position to vindicate himself, if possible, and enable us to continue having for him that esteem we have always had heretofore.
Mr. ADELARD LANCTOT (Richelieu).: I must say that I have no objection whatever to the motion of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Blondin) asking that the charges preferred against me as a member of this House be referred for investigation to the Committee on Privileges and Elections. I am glad he has brought this matter to the attention of the House, and I court the fullest and most complete investigation of it.
The facts are simply these:	During the
month of June last, I was building a house in Sorel, and when it was ready to be painted I had at the time to leave Sorel very frequently to go to Saranac lake where my wife was lying ill. Not having sufficient time to bring painters to Sorel from any outside place, and knowing that none could be had in the town of Sorel except at the Marine Department shops, and at the Richelieu and Ontario shops, I went to the Marine Department to ask the superintendent Mr. Papineau, to send me a few painters to finish my work. Mr. Papineau being absent, I spoke to Mr. Champagne, the timekeeper, and requested him to send me painters when he could spare them without delaying the work of the department, and I told him to keep an exact, accurate and separate account of the time of these men while working at my house; at the same time, I informed Mr. Page, the foreman, that I had asked for painters from Mr. Champagne, and that Mr. Champagne would keep the time of the men while they were working at my place. I told Mr. Page to get all the necessary materials from Cyrille Labelle & Co., with whom I was dealing, and where I had an account current for supplies used in my building. I also explained to Mr. Page that I was leaving for Saranac, lake to join my wife, and that I relied upon him to see that the men did their work properly, requesting him at the same time to render me the accounts as the work was proceeding that I might pay them, to avoid any misunderstanding in the matter. Men were sent at various times between the months of June and November to do this work, and during that period, when I asked at different times that the account he rendered to me, I was told that it would be more simple and would involve less work to render the account when the work was finished. The Mr. BLONDIN.
men did the work, and when the same was finished, the bill was rendered to me by Mr. Champagne for the department and I immediately paid it in full upon its production.
Some of the paint, varnish and other materials used were obtained from the shops of the Department of Marine and Fisheries. An accurate account of such materials was kept, and goods of the same quality and to the same quantity were purchased to replace the same, and the account for the goods so purchased together with costs of carriage to Sorel was paid by me and goods were returned to the department immediately.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-TYPHOID	EPIDEMIC IN

Mr. J. B. BLACK (Hants).: Mr. Speaker, I Tise to a question of privilege. On Thursday last, I made a few remarks in which I referred to the water service of the city of Ottawa. I also referred to some statistics of infantile mortality in Ottawa. In Saturday's Ottawa ' Citizen,' there was an editorial commenting upon what I said. The editorial reads in part as follows:



DR. BLACK'S STATEMENTS.

[Stage Direction]
The attack of Dr. Black, M.P., upon Ottawa water conditions in the House of Commons has, unfortunately, attracted much outside attention. The term unfortunate is used because it is a matter of regret that a statement destined to attain such publicity should have contained assertions which are, in many cases, not borne out by facts.
Dr. Black made the surprising claim that Ottawa water has been polluted for several years past and that the presence of typhoid bacilli had been demonstrated therein. As a matter of fact such a statement is at variance with the records. The tests of city water, conducted perhaps irregularly, have never shown any trace of typhoid bacilli, and to this more probably than anything else was due the irregularity of the tests. Had these shown typhoid germs at any time the medical health officer certainly would have made the fact known. Typhoid has yet to be demonstrated in Ottawa water. _
Dr. Black also asserts that it is known where the present outbreak has originated. If so, it is not a matter of common knowledge and Dr. Black- is not using the city fairly by withholding such information, particularly at this time. We may be getting poisoned, as Dr. Black intimates, but we can still conscientiously plead that we _ don't know how any more than at the beginning of the present outbreak.
It might also be interesting if Dr. Black were to give us the source or authority for the statement that 626 infants out of 2,100 born in the year ending October 31, 1910, in this city, died in infancy. The figures seem alarmingly large, but if correct, the city owes
[Stage Direction]
the honourable member an expression of thanks for calling attention to such a condition.
I need not read the rest of this article. In referring to what the editor says, let me take the last statement first. The ' Citizen ' wants to know where I got my figures. It affords me pleasure, and no little comfort to inform the ' Citizen ' that I got these figures from the ' Citizen.' When I gave these figures, I was quoting from the ' Citizen ' of December 29, 1910. I will read the paragraph to show that I made no mistake:
The city hall figures show that, excluding entirely 143 deaths in two children's homes-
I want you to note that the paragraph divides the death rate into two different lots, giving the percentage of one and not of the other, while I added them and gave the percentage of the whole.
-483 deaths of children under one year took place in the year ending October 31 last. The last birth rate published for 1908 gave 25-5 births per 1,000 in Ottawa. Taking this as a rough basis, we find that there would have been last year 2,100 births, of whom 483, or 230 in 1,000 died. Compared with the rate for all England in 1907, the rate there was only 117 per 1,000, while in Ontario in the census year it was 132 deaths per 1,000.
Add these together as I did, and you will see that, according to the ' Citizen's ' figures, I am exactly right. Now, what do you think of that for a great moral and religious family journal? The 'Citizen' does not Temember what it published, a short two months and a week ago, and accuses me of spreading broadcast through the country, statistics detrimental to the good name of Ottawa. These figures are so startling that, when I first saw them, I could not believe them, I admit that I am not educated up to the point of believing everything that is in the Ottawa ' Citizen,' so I had these figures verified at the city hall. I state again that these figures, according to the city hall, are perfectly correct. The ' Citizen ' says:
If correct, the city owes the hon. member an expression of thanks for calling attention to such a condition.
I will waive all this, I will give the whole of that to the ' Citizen '-after you, my dear Alphonse! Now, we will come back
Mr. SPEAKER.: If I understand the hon. gentleman is rising to the correction of a statement?


Judson Burpee Black: I am rising to the correction of a statement.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: He will have to limit himself to that correction.
147t


Judson Burpee Black: I am limiting myself to it, and if I get beyond that please correct me. This paper said that I said that typhoid bacillus was in the water. I did unfortunately say that, but it was a slip of the tongue, and not due to a lack of knowledge of the matter. My mind was so full of typhoid at the time that I said ' typhoid bacillus ' instead of ' colon bacillus '. The merest tyro in water analysis knows that the typhoid bacillus is the most difficult bacillus to find in water. Sometimes, with great difficulty, it is found in milk, but it has been shown over and over again that colon bacilli are present in the Ottawa water and have been. Colon bacilli and typhoid bacilli are room mates living side by side in the same space in the human system. Their lives run parallel in the human body and when present in the Ottawa river their lives run parallel and the tendency is to die. You find colon bacilli quite readily by analysis, but the typhoid bacillus is very, very difficult to find, so difficult that whenever colon bacilli are found it is assumed, as a matter of course, that their running mate, the typhoid bacillus is there also. When colon bacilli are found it follows as a natural assumption that typhoid will result. Colon bacilli have been found in the water year after vear, and this proves that the trouble exists in the water. To contradict this statement, I want to say this: There are four wavs in which typhoid is carried-water, milk, flies, contact. Let us take them one by one.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Does the hon. gentleman think this is the correction of a statement?


Judson Burpee Black: I think it is a contradiction. This editor says that I am wrong, that there is no evidence that there is typhoid in the Ottawa water.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: This is not the time to discuss that question; there is nothing before the Chair. The hon. gentleman has risen to a question of privilege. If the hon. gentleman desires to correct a statement he must confine himself to that and not discuss typhoid at this stage.


Judson Burpee Black: I do not want to discuss typhoid, but I want to show that I am correct with regard to typhoid in the Ottawa water.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The point is not well taken at this stage because there is nothing before the Chair. When the hon. gentleman says that he will limit himself to a correction he should do so.


Judson Burpee Black: Well, I am very sorry, but I think I have been greatly wronged here, and I want to make myself right. I do not want to break the rules of the House, but I want to make myself exactly right. The

' Citizen' says that I am wrong, and I am Epositive that I am right.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The hon. gentleman will have an opportunity when we move to go into Supply.


Judson Burpee Black: All right.



NAVAL SERVICE EXPENDITURES.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day being called:
Mr. BRODEUE.: My _ hon. friend from
Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asked me the other day to comply with an order which had been passed by the House on the 5th December for a statement of the expenses in connection with the Naval Service. I may inform my hon. friend that the report which he is seeking was laid on the table of the House on the 16th December. I suppose the matter escaped his attention.


Mr. MONK.: I got the report from Mr. Dube upstairs that there had been no return to that order of the House, and that is why I asked the question.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I see the following entry in the Votes and Proceedings of December 16, which I suppose covers the case:
Mr. Brodeur presented return to an order of the House of the 15th December, 1910, for a statement showing the detailed expenditure to date out of the sum voted by the House in connection wtih the new navy, giving in each case the amount paid, to whom paid and the object of the expenditure.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The report evidently has not been entered upstairs.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I suppose the clerk will look after that.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) if he has yet brought down the information I asked from him the other day-the minute of the Treasury Board of the 30th November, 1906, and the names of the component members of the board?


Mr. FIELDING.: I gave directions to have that prepared. I will try to have it brought down to-day.



CORONATION CONTINGENT.

[Stage Direction]
_ Mr. BLAIN. I would like to ask a question of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden). Perhaps I can do it better by reading the following *despatch:
ABUSE OF PATRONAGE Claimed in Connection With the Coronation Contingent.
Ottawa, Feb. 20.-(Special.)-Members of parliament are considerably aroused over Mr. BLACK.
what is claimed to be a shameful abuse of patronage in connection with the selection of the officers for the Canadian coronation contingent. About thirty officers are to be chosen, and in Toronto and other places the local patronage committees are dealing with the matter and passing their recommendations on to the Minister of Militia.
lit is stated: 'Instead of a fine body of men chosen to represent Canada oh their merits being sent to the coronation, faithful friends of the government will be among the elect.' Officers whose service and seniority entitle them to place are being ignored.
I do not know anything of the correctness of this report, but I thought I would give the minister an opportunity to deny it here.
Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.: Who sends the telegram?


Mr. BLAIN.: It is a newspaper despatch; I will hand it over to my hon. friend.


Frederick William Borden: From what newspaper?


Richard Blain: It is a despatch from Ottawa to Toronto ' World.'


Frederick William Borden: Oh, from Ottawa! Mr. Speaker, a question was asked in the House by two or three hon. members as to the principle upon which the selection would be made for the coronation contingent. I answered the question very fully. As far as the selection of the men who will compose the contingent is concerned, they will be selected absolutely and entirely by the commanding officers of their respective corps from which the men are taken. There will be a proper percentage selected from every corps, or every regiment in the whole Dominion. No selection will be made from Ottawa; the headquarters' staff or the minister will have absolutely nothing to do with the selection. That is, as far as the non-commissioned officers and men are concerned. In so far as the officers are concerned, the principle upon which they are being selected is also laid down in the answer which I gave. No officers who have already attended a similar function, for instance, the coronation of 1902 and the jubilee of 1897, will be allowed to attend the coronation. Officers who have had war service and medals will be preferred. No officer will be allowed to serve in a rank junior to that in which he is serving in the militia. That is to say, no officer will be allowed to attend the coronation in a rank junior to his own if he is not within the age limit of that junior rank, the reason being that there are officers who are very keen to attend this function, who, being majors, we will say, or even lieutenant-colonels, would be quite willing to attend in a junior rank for the sake of going. We have made it a regulation that, say a major, will not be allowed to attend in any

rank junior to the rank of major unless he is within the age limit. For instance, it might be convenient to take a major as captain-the next rank below-but he would not be allowed to serve as captain unless he is within the age limit of a captain.


Mr. CARVELL.: If a subordinate is willing to go as a sergeant, or even as a private, what would be the rule?


Frederick William Borden: I do not think that would be right. I do not think we should allow any commissioned officer to serve as a non-commissioned officer, or as a private; that is the position I have taken. Now, as-regards this telegram, I can only say it is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end; perhaps that is the best way to describe it. Whether Liberal com-mitteees, or Conservative committees for that matter, may have met and passed resolutions; I do not know for a fact, although I do not think it is a fact. But if it were a fact I wish to say at once, Mr. Speaker, it would have no influence whatever on me. Regiments have	met-one
regiment of the city of Ottawa has indicated that they wish a certain officer to be taken if any officer is to go from that regiment. The officers of the 5th Royal Highlanders of Montreal have also met and selected an officer, and I would think, Mr. Speaker, that assuming the officer so selected came within the regulations, I should be under an' obligation to accept that officer if any officer is to be taken from those regiments. I wish to say, if I may add a word, that the difficulty of the situation is very considerable. There are to be chosen 48 officers altogether, eight or ten of whom will necessarily be of the permanent force, so that there will be some thirty-eight officers to be chosen from the active militia of Canada, which comprises between 3,500 and 4,000 officers. There are something like 100 or 120 different military corps, regiments, squadrons, or units in the militia, so that on an average there will be one officer from every 3 or 4 corps.


Richard Blain: Will there be representatives taken from each province?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


Mr. LAKE.: Is it the purpose to send a detachment of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police?


Frederick William Borden: There will be, as there was in 1902, a certain percentage of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police in the contingent, but that is being attended to by the department in charge. It is. perhaps, convenient for me to say now that the first thing we have to do is to carefully consider the relative number of
the different branches of the service, cavalry, artillery, infantry and some of the minor services, and if possible, and so far as possible, to properly divide the contingent up according to strength among these different branches of the service. Then we have to consider provinces; every province in the Dominion must be represented by both officers and men. Some of the provinces may not be entitled to more than one officer, but every province will receive its fair share of representation among the commissioned officers, the non-commissioned officers and men. It is a difficult task. I am getting the best help I can from headquarters here and from other parts of the militia throughout the country to enable me to solve the difficulty fairly and with due regard to all interests, and also to enable Canada to present, on such a memorable occasion, a contingent which in every respect will be worthy the country it represents.


Mr. HAGGART (Lanark).: Have the commandants been selected? It is reported in the newspapers that Col. Woods and others have been selected?


Frederick William Borden: The commandant is to be Col. McLean, a member of this House. No other selections have been absolutely determined. At an early date, perhaps when the militia estimates come up, I hope to be able to submit to the House at least a progress estimate as to what has been done.


Mr. DANIEL.: If one of the officers of the contingent should be serving in a rank junior to that which he holds in the militia, what uniform will he wear in the. contingent, that of his actual rank or that of the rank he is serving in?


Frederick William Borden: That is a Question of detail which I would not like to answer, but as I understand it-I think it was done in 1902-an order in council will be passed appointing all the officers to this special service, sp that I should think -although I speak now under correction- that the officer should wear the uniform of the rank in which he serves in the contingent.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: What will be the strength of the contingent?.


Frederick William Borden: I think we are invited to send a contingent about 700 strong, which would, of course, include officers.


Richard Stuart Lake: Perhaps the Prime Minister would tell us now how many officers and men of the Royal Northwest Mounted Police will be sent on the contingent?


Wilfrid Laurier: That has not yet bean arranged.



RECIPROCITY AND THE FARMERS.

Mr. LENNOX.: Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance to a statement appearing in the ' Globe ' in reference to a meeting held recently at Woodstock, at which the ho.n. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) spoke, and at which he was reported as saying:
He thought the manufacturers opposed reciprocity because of what might follow the thin edge of the wedge; but he had been assured by Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Mr. Fielding that nothing of the sort would follow. They had gone as far in the farmers' interests as they would.
I wish to ask the Prime Minister if it is correct that the hon. member who was speaking had been assured by him and by the Minister of Finance in the way the hon. member said, and, if so, is it a fact that the government have gone as far as they Will go in the interests of the farmers? Is this to be considered as final as regards the representations made by the grain growers of the west, for instance, and is this the reason that the Prime Minister has prevented the further discussion of the motion made by the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Meighen) in reference to a reduction of the duties on farming implements?


Wilfrid Laurier: I have to say to my hon. friend, with regard to the latter part of his statement, that I have not prevented the hon. member for Portage la Prairie going on with his motion. It is on the Order Paper and is liable to be discussed if it is called again in the present session. With regard to the other question, I think my hon. friend had better wait until the ho.n. member for North Oxford is in his seat.


Haughton Lennox: I understand that on one occasion, some time ago, perhaps for very good reasons, when the motion of the hon. member for Portage la Prairie was called, the right hon. the Prime Minister said, ' Stand.'	.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend is quite correct. On one occasion I did not see the hon. member for Portage la Prairie in his seat, though I was afterwards informed he was in his seat.


Haughton Lennox: There can be no reason for letting my question stand so far as the assurances given by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance is concerned. He knows whether he gave that assurance or not.


Richard Stuart Lake: 


Wilfrid Laurier: Yes, but I do not know exactly what the hon. member for North Oxford said:



PRIVATE BILLS.


[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 32) to incorporate the Sterling Trust Company.-Mr. Martin (Regina).
Bill No. (127) to incorporate the Capital Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Mr. Low.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. CAMPBELL:: 1.	When was the lease of fishing rights on Nelson river and James Bay granted to Markey ?
2.	What territory in square miles does it cover?
3.	For how many years is it granted, a.nd what is the annual rental ?
i.	What amounts have been expended for inspection ?
5.	What amounts have been collected from the lessee, year by year?
6.	When did the Department of Marine and Fisheries determine to cancel said lease?
7 Why has it been transferred to the Department of Justice for decision?
8. When was Mr. Shepley retained to give an opinion re cancellation of said lease?
9 What will his probable fee be for such service ?


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH:: 1.	The lease of fishing privileges in the Nelson river was granted to Mr. Markey 19th April, 1904, and was on that date transferred to the British-American Fish Corporation, Limited. It did not embrace fishing privileges in James bay.
2.	The area covered by the lease is the Nelson river and tributaries from West river to its mouth, the estuary of the Nelson from Cape Tatnam to Owl river, extending three miles from land; the Hayes river and tributaries, the portion of Pigeon river in Keewatin and Great Slave lake.
3.	21 years. $10 per annum.
4.	The inspection has been made by the inspector of fisheries for the district. No separate statement of the cost of this particular work has been kept.
5.	$10 up to the year 1910.
6.	In September, 1908.
7.	To take the necessary proceedings to bring about the cancellation of the lease.
8.	No record was made of the date when Mr. iShepley was first consulted in the matter. It was in a personal interview between Mr. Shepley and the Minister of Jus-

tice, which took place some fifteen, or sixteen months ago.
9.	It will depend on the extent to which his services may be required.


NAVY REGULATIONS.
*Mr. MONK:: 1.	Has the government adopted regulations under the recent Navy Aot passed by parliament?
2.	If so, have the said regulations been printed for distribution?
3 Have said regulations been translated and printed ?


Mr. BRODEUR:: 1.	Yes.
2	and 3. These regulations have been translated and have been printed and published in English and French in ' The *Canada Gazette.' Booklets have been printed in English and French for distribution, embodying the regulations for joining the naval service, and for the entry t'o the naval college.


FAVOURED NATION TREATY.
*Mr. EDWARDS:: In addition to the following countries, viz.; Argentine Republic, Austria-Hungary, Bolivia, Columbia, Denmark, Japan, Norway, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and Venezuela, that will have the same privileges as the United States in importing goods into Canada, as stated by the honourable the Minister of Finance, in answer to question on February 23, 1911, what other British possessions or dominions will have the same rights on account of their coming under the Favoured Nation Treaty or their being British possessions?


William Stevens Fielding: All British countries, without exception, where they are not already in the enjoyment of similar concessions through the operation of the French Convention Act, or where they are not enjoying the more favourable rates of the British preferential tariff, under section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act, will receive the benefit of the reductions proposed in the agreement with the United States.


QUEBEC BRIDGE.
[Stage Direction]
* Mr. LENNOX:
1.	Referring to the item of about $7,000,000, stated by the minister as the cost of the fallen Quebec bridge, how did the government finance this expenditure?
2	If by loans, at what dates, for what sums, at what rates of interest, and at what cost far placing the loans?
3.	How are the interest charges met?
4.	What amount has been charged up as interest on the above sum since the above return ?
Mr. FIELDING:: 1.	When the bridge was taken over by the government from the Quebec Bridge company, the funds required, were provided out of the general consolidated fund of Canada.
2	and 3. No special loans were-made on .account of the bridge.
4.	No amount.


ST GABRIEL DE STRATFORD WHARF.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mr. MONK:
1.	Has the contract been awarded for the construction of a wharf at St. Gabriel de Stratford, in the province of Quebec? If so. to whom?
2.	How many tenders were received, from what parties and at what amounts?
3	Is the contract signed, and at what figu re ?
4. Does the contract contain a fair wage clause or schedule?
Mr. PIIGSLEY:: 1.	Yes, to McLaughlin Brothers, Ottawa.
2.	11 tenders were received.
McLaughlin Brothers, Ottawa, Ontario,
$5,975; Leacey, W. M., Prescott, Ontario, $6,370; Bridge & Wharf Builder Company, Montreal, Quebec, $6,484.37; Carbonneau, C. W., Sorel, Quebec, $6,500; Crombie, Reginald H., Montreal, $6,832; Fortin, Louis, lac Weedon, P.Q., $7,075; Phillips, G. R., Cornwall, Ontario, $7,375; Morin, Edmond & Leblanc Frs., Lac Weedon, P.Q., $7,750; Begin, O., & Begin, D., Disraeli, Quebec, $8,350; Beauchemin, L. A., Sorel, Quebec, $9,400; Levesque, Michel (Stratford Centre. Quebec), $14,500.
3.	Yes, for $5,975.
4.	Yes.


MARIEVILLE POST OFFICE.
[Stage Direction]
*	Mt. MONK:
1.	Has the government purchased a site for a new post office at Marieville, county of Renville, province of Quebec?
2.	If so, from whom was said site purchased, at what price and what are its dimensions ?
3.	Was there a valuation made of said site and by whom?
4.	What is the municipal valuation of the said property?
5.	Upon whose Teport was the property purchased ?	_
6.	Was any order in council passed in regard to said purchase? If so, at what date?
Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	From corporation of town of Marieville, for $1,500, is 84 feet on Dupont by 61 on Ste. Marie street.
3	& 5. Site was purchased on the report of an agent of the department, who personally visited Marieville and inspected and valued the property.

4. Not assessed.
6.	Yes, on 19th June, 1908.


MILITIA SUPPLIES.
Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	Is it the intention of the Militia Department to call for tenders for all supplies required for the incoming: year?
2	If so, is it intended to have the different tenders for the different supplies separated as much as possible in order that the person to supply the goods may he able to tender for that portion which they themselves produce or manufacture?
3	When will the tenders be asked for?


Frederick William Borden: 1 & 2vTenders for provisions, supplies and barrack services for the permanent force, for the 12 months beginning April 1, 1911, have already been called for in the usual way * the only change in the procedure being that arrangements are being made to procure the supply of tea and coffee required from -wholesale dealers or importers, instead of from retailers as before; and that the supply of yeast required is to be obtained from the manufacturers, instead of from retailers.
3.	Tenders for supplies for the permanent force were called for some weeks ago. Tenders for supplies for the various camps of instruction will be invited from time to time during the spring and summer. The dates have not yet been fixed, either for the camps themselves or for the calling of tenders therefor.


DFCORATION OF BUILDINGS DURING EUCHARISTIC CONFERENCE.
Mr. BEST:: 1	How many buildings were decorated during the time of the Eucharistic Congress at the expense of this government?
2	Who asked for the decorations and by whom was it granted?
3	1/ any were decorated, what was the total cost to the government?


Mr. PUGSLEY:: 1.	Two.
2.	(a) Minister of Marine and Fisheries, (b) Deputy Minister Public Works, and
chief architect.
3.	$480.


MUTILATION OF MAILS. DELAYS IN DEAD LETTER BRANCH.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1.	Has the government ever tried using elastic bands instead of string to hold bundle! of letters together, in outside offices? If so. with what success, and if not, why not? '
2.	Has the government recently investigated the carriage of mail matter between Kingston and Ottawa? If so, what irregularities have been found as to delays in transmission of mail, irregular delivery at Ottawa, and careless handling of His Majesty's mail?
3.	If this investigation has not been made, why not, and will the government institute-ail immediate investigation into these complaints?
4.	Has the government inquired into the cause of delay in returning letters sent to the dead letter office, and have instructions been given to return them more promptly to the owner?
5.	Does the government make frequent tests of the tensile strength of the paper out of which the mutilated envelopes, sent in along with complaints, are made?
6.	Does the government make inquiry into all the complaints received regarding mutilated envelopes? If so, what action is taken to improve the system?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: _
1. No. It has never seemed a necessity to do so, as tying them with twine has been an absolute success, and is in use in every postal country in the world. Elastic bands after being once or twice used could not be relied upon, owing to the loss of elasticity, and wonld be of no use in keeping letters together. The use of elastic bands would, as compared with the cotton twine now specially manufactured for the purpose, immensely enhance the cost of the transmission of the mails, since, in addition to the perishability of the bands, a large variety, as regards size, thickness and width, would be required to be held in stock at every post office. Moreover, no .complaint has been made throughout the whole of Canada, except by the one business firm.
2	and 3. The department has no reason to believe that other than the schedule time is required for the transmission of mail matter between Kingston and Ottawa. A search of the departmental records covering a period of one year, however, reveals the fact that three complaints were received from the E. B. Eddy Company, Limited, Hull, respecting delay in tho transmission of their correspondence between Kingston and Ottawa, and investigation showed that in only two of the cases was delay attributable to the postal service. The first case concerned a letter mailed at Kingston on the evening of Friday, the 25th of November, 'and which, it was stated did not reach the addressees until Monday, the 28th of November. In some way or other this letter was missent upon the mail clerk of Ottawa and Calumet, and if Sunday had not intervened, delivery could have been effected one day earlier. The second case referred to a letter mailed at Kingston on the 22nd December, and said not to have been received until the morning of the 24th. Careful inquiry failed to locate responsibility, but it should be pointed out that this alleged delay occurred during the extraordinary pressure oi work consequent upon the Christmas season when-' the mail service was naturally somewhat


Mr. PUGSLEY.: congested with the enormous quantity of matter in course of transmission. The final case related to a letter posted at Kingston at 6 p.m. on the 27th of December, and received by the addressees at 11 a.m. on the 28th. No delay occurred in this instance and the complainants were so advised.
4.	The department has no reason to believe that there is any avoidable delay in the disposal of mail matter received at the dead letter office. The matter was very fully, taken up with the dead letter office less than a month ago, and every possible effort is being made to secure promptness in the return of dead letters.
5.	No. The complaints which have been received in regard to this matter have been exclusively from one source. In this case, the company in question make use of envelopes which are much larger than those usually employed besides being of a more or less brittle character. The consequence is that the damage complained of is probably due as much to the unusual size of the envelope as the character of the paper of which it is made.
6.	Careful investigation is always made into each complaint, and when it is ascertained that the irregularities complained of could be properly charged against the postal service, steps are taken to prevent their recurrence.


DIXON POST OFFICE.
Mr. ARMSTRONG:: 1- Is the Postmaster General in possession or affidavits of sixteen responsible persons from the locality of Dixon, Ontario, affirming that after the resignation of the postmaster of the Dixon post office in 1907, the office was for several months temporarily located on a site at the factory corner, a few rods east of old site of 30 years standing, viz.: at factory corner, of excellent convenience to the general public, and from thence transferred to the present location, a distance of over one-half a mile away, out in the country, where it is giving no extended accommodation to a single individual outside the regular post office patrons?
2.	Is the Postmaster General also in possession of additional affidavits from six responsible persons residing at the east of this section contiguous to Northfield Station post office testifying that the Dixon post office has always been their office, and if located at the business centre of village would be far more convenient for them than Northfield Station post office, as Dixon is their business centre?
3.	Is the Postmaster General in receipt of two petitions signed by over three-fourths of the people of the locality of Dixon respectfully asking that their post office be transferred to the proposed site, viz.: at factory corner, on the ground that the inconvenience to the general public due directly to the present location of said office is in the ratio of at the very least calculation, five to one?
4.	Has there been a loss of revenue to the Post Office Department by said transfer? If so, how much?
5.	Is the Postmaster General in receipt also of the report of the assistant post office inspector, Mr. Coolican, in regard to this matter corroborating the statements contained within the above-mentioned affidavits?
6.	If these allegations should be correct, will the Postmaster General restore to the people of Dixon their rights of a centrally heated post office?


Mr. LEMIEUX:: 1.	Yes. An affidavit to this effect, signed by sixteen persons, was received.
2.	Yes. An affidavit to this effect, signed by six persons, was received.
3.	Two petitions were received asking for the removal of the post office to the proposed site. A petition was also received asking for its removal to the present location.
4.	There has been a diminution of $22.75 in the revenue of the office. But the revenue of this office has varied considerably during the past few years, and the decrease in revenue is not necessarily due to the change in location.
5.	The post office inspector's report does not support the statements contained in the above affidavit. On the contrary, the inspector stated that ' the present site of the Dixon post office is as near the geographical centre of the district it is intended to serve as it is possible to get.' The inspector further reported that many of the names on the petition for the proposed change were those of persons who received their mail at the neighbouring post office at Northfield station.
6.	It is not considered advisable to make any further change in the location of the officq.


MR. JOHN JARDINE.
Mr. BARNARD:: 1.	Referring to question and answer re Mr. John Jardine, set out in column 3926 of Unrevised Hansard, did Mr. Jardine receive any money for work in excess of what he was authorized to do ? If so, how much ?
2.	Was such money paid to or received by said Jardine without the knowledge of the government, as stated in said extract?


William Pugsley: 1 and 2. Mr. Jardine was paid for all work done by him which exceeded by $4,986.77 the amount he was instructed by the department's resident architect at Victoria to do. He was paid by the department on accounts duly certified and sent in by the resident architect out of the general vote for Williams Head quarantine station for the fiscal year 1908-9.


IMPORTS OF BUTTER AND EGGS.
Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds):: 1. How many packages of butter have been imported into Canada during the months of

October, November and December of 1910, and for the month of January, 1911?
2.	What was the weight and value thereof, and the countries from which it was imported? '
_ 3. What was the number of dozens of eggs imported during the same months, the value
thereof and the countries exporting same?


Mr. PATERSON:: 1.	The number of packages of butter imported into Canada are not recorded in statistics, the quantity in ' pounds' simply being shown.
2.	The quantity and value of butter imported into Canada, by countries, during the months of October, November and December of 1910, and the month of January, 1911, were as follows.
-	Countries.	Pounds.	Value.October, 1910...	Great Britain....	201	$ 31United States...	5,496	1,707November, 1910.	Italy 	213	71United States...	3,917	1,161December, 1910.	Australia	72,800	17,219New Zealand ...	19,000	4,615United States...	5,563	1,453January, 1911...	Great Britain-	19,333	4,776Australia . ...	101,920	23,957New Zealand....	115,800	30,175Asia, Turkey in..	142	33United States...	2,132	6403.	The quantity and value of eggs imported into Canada by countries, during the months of October, November and December, 1910, and the month of January, 1911, was as follows:-	Countries.	Dozens.	Value.October, 1910...	Hong: Kong	2,855	$ 121China 	1,075	53United States...	14,056	4,991November, 1910.	Hong Hong. ...	4,290	273China	1,930	114Germany	24,000	3,942United States...	26,440	8,159December, 1910..	Great Britain ...	12,000	2,117Hong Hong	10,966	977China	10,450	2,118Germany	12,000	1,971United States...	41,930	11,922January, 1911...	Great Britain ...	40	11Hong Hong	4,704	219China	10,485	2,364Germany	12,000	1,971United States....	165,026	36,622


'REXALL.'
Haughton Lennox: (1. Has the United Drug Company of New York obtained or applied for registration under the name of 'Rexall' or registration of the name 'Rexall' in the Dominion of Canada ?
2.	Is it a fact, as alleged, that this company has been refused registration in the United States?
3.	Does the government propose to grant registration to this company in Canada?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	The United Drug Company of New York has not obtained or applied for registration under the' name of ' Rexall,' as there is no statute of the Dominion of Canada providing for the registration of such a company. The word ' Rexall ' was registered as a general trade mark on the 21st April, 1903, in the name of Nelson Burgess and Henry Edwin Hill of Toronto, Ontario. It now stands in the name of the United Drug Company of Boston, Massachusetts.
2.	The government has no information on this question.
3.	Answered by No. 1.


CLEARANCE OF CANADIAN VESSELS.
Mr. LANCASTER:: 1 Is it (possible, under existing regulations, [DOT]for a citizen of the United States of America to clear a Canadian vessel at a Canadian custom house?
2. If so, what are the regulations governing such a clearance?


Mr. PATERSON.: The reports of vessels at the Custom House are usually made inwards and outwards by the masters of such vessels. The following provisions, however, respecting reports by the purser of coastwise steamers are contained in the Coasting Trade General Regulations, approved by order in council, April 17, 1883:
Sec. 13. The reports inwards and outwards coastwise required by these regulations may, in the case of any steam vessel carrying a puiser be signed by such purser, with the like effect in all respects, and subject to the like penalty on the purser, and the like forfeiture of the goods, in case of any untrue statement, or violation of customs laws as if the report was signed by the master; and the word 'master' for the purposes of these regulations shall be construed as including the purser of any steam vessel; but nothing herein contained shall preclude the collector or proper officer of customs from calling upon the master of any steam vessel to answer all such questions concerning the vessel, passengers, cargo and crew, as might be lawfully demanded of him if the report had been made by him, or to exempt the master from the penalties imposed by these regulations for failure to answer any such questions or for answering untruly or to prevent the master from making such report, if he shall see fit ' to do so.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: Under this section, if the purser were a citizen of the United States, he could sign these reports.
POST OFFICE AND CUSTOMS REVENUES. Mr. MACDONELL:
What was the Post Office revenue and the Customs revenue, respectively, for the years from 1906 to 1910, inclusive, for the cities of Montreal, Toronto and Moosejaw?


Mr. MURPHY:: Postal Revenue:
-	Montreal.	Toronto.	Moosejaw.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1906 ....	906,140 30	1,194,382	16	12,708 321907 ....	660 3i7 61	998,951	09	*14,581 451908 ....	938,936 53	1,478,195	66	22,819 611909 ....	963,729 22	1,513,310	52	25,601 511910 ....	1,063,228 35	1,709,493	34	33,307 73
* 9 months.
Customs Revenue:
-	Montreal.	Toronto and West Toronto.	Moosejaw.$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1906 ....	13,226,219 72	9,566,250 86	24,094 051907 ....	11,404,462 25	8,101,233 45	21,091 741908 ...	16,371,967 24	11,279,843 25	40,877 811909 ...	12,872,481 23	9,553,880 12	47,220 891910 ....	16,268,416 51	12,517,244 18	79,996 27
The figures for 1907 are for a period of nine months only.


ALGOMA TIMBER PERMITS.
Mr. BOYCE:: What amount of dues were paid to the Department of Indian Affairs for timber cut in the township of Laird, district of Algoma, during the year 1910, and upon what quantity of timber was the same paid?


Mr. OLIVER:: No dues have yet been received by the department for timber cut in the township of Laird, for 1910. Sworn returns of last season's operations by the licensee have not, so far, been received by the department.


WEST INDIES (STEAMSHIP SERVICE.
Mr. CROSBY:: 1.	What arrangements are being made, if any, for steamship communication between Halifax and the West Indies?
2.	As the present contract expires shortly, when will the tenders be asked for the new service ?
3.	What specifications will be placed before the public regarding boats for the service?
1. What will their passenger accommodation and freight capacity require to be, and what will be the speed required of the boats?
5. Has the government decided whether we are to have a weekly or tri-weekly service instead of the present service?


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: 1. The government is awaiting a call for tenders which the British government, who pay half the subsidy, has informed the Canadian government will be issued simultaneously in the United Kingdom, Canada and the British West Indies.
.2. Answered by No. 1.
3	& 4. Adequate passenger and freight accommodation will 'be required, and tenders, including speed, will be considered upon their respective merits.	.
5.	Alternative tenders will be asked as to frequency of the proposed new service.


IMPORTS OF COAL AND COKE.
Mr. STANFIELD:: 1.	What are the quantities and values, respectively, of the several classes of coal and coke imported into Canada from the United States in each of the years since 1894 and up to the present date?
2.	What were the rate of duties imposed by Canada on the several classes, respectively, in each of said years?


William Paterson: 1 & 2. The quantity and value of coal and coke imported info Canada from the United States, together with the rates of duty imposed thereon, during the fiscal years from 1894 to 1910 was as follows:


CANADIAN COASTING ACT.
Mr. CROSBY:: With regard to the new Canadian Coasting Act which comes into force the beginning of next year, whereby no foreign vessels are allowed to trade between Canadian ports, is there any possibility or expectation of this law being changed, or is it to be carried into effect without any alteration, so that only vessels of British register and carrying British flags shall be allowed to enter our interprovincial coastwise trade on and after the expiration of the present time allowed?


William Paterson: The government has not decided whether to take action or not in regard to the opening of the coasting trade in part to foreign vessels after 31st December, 1911.


William Paterson: 


OTTAWA TYPHOID AND SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE.
Mr. CHISHOLM (Huron):: Is there any truth in the rumour that on account of the fearful epidemic of typhoid fever now prevailing' in Ottawa and the consequent danger to the lives and the health of the members of parliament, their families and others, the government intend in the near future to prorogue parliament and afterwards to call a short summer session after the coronation for the purpose of finishing the public business?
-Sir WILFRID LAURIER. Everybody in this city is aware that the epidemic of typhoid which has prevailed here for some time past appears to be not abating but rather spreading and increasing. The gov-

eminent, however, have seen no reason, so far, why they should adopt such an extreme course as to prorogue or even adjourn parliament. But, of course, we do not know what will take place in the future; and if such a contingency should arise we will be guided largely by the views of members of this House.


ANIMAL INDUSTRY IN CANADA.
Mr. MAGRATH moved:: For a copy of all reports, data, statistics, documents, papers and information of every kind and description in the possession of the Department of Agriculture or of any department of the government touching the animal products of Canada, the packing industry, the meat trade, the advantages of a well organized system of cold storage and refrigeration, and generally touching all matters connected with the development and improvement of the animal industry in Canada.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: The hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Magrath.) spoke to me a few minutes ago. I had explained to him that this was a very comprehensive and omnibus motion and that it would take a very long time to obtain the information called for. He said he would be glad to confer with me and explain what he needed. On these conditions, I should be glad to have the motion adopted.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
For a copy of the order in council appointing or providing for the appointment of the engineers to prepare and determine upon plans and specifications and superintend the construction of the Quebec bridge, and of all instructions, correspondence, writings and documents in connection with these appointments, including the two additional engineers ; and also a copy of any subsequent orders in council, or any instructions, correspondence, &e., relating to the refusal of any of the engineers to act, or continue in office, or the retirement, or substitution of engineers. - Mr. Lennox.
For a copy of the report of the engineers who investigated over-classification, over-break or other alleged over-allowances on progress or final estimate on the eastern division of the Transcontinental railway, the evidence taken, or other data collected, and of all letters, instructions, agreements, plans, drawings, photographs, memoranda and writings sent, given, had or used in connection with said investigation, not already brought down, together with a reference to the previous return where papers are already down; also a copy of the previous report made by Messrs. Schreiber, Kelliher and Lumsden; immediately before Mr. Lumsden's resignation.-Mr. Lernox.	\ ^ |f
Copy of all papers, reports of appraiser, letters and correspondence relating to the appraising and passing the customs of the vessel 'Wanda,' owned bv one William R. Travers, Toronto, on the 20th October, 1909.- Mr. Sharpe (Ontario.)
SUPPLY-HAGUE ARBITRATION;

[Stage Direction]
House resumed the debate on motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) for the House to go into Committee of Supply.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, resuming the adjourned debate on the question raised by my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), let me say at once that I And no fault with the hon. gentleman for bringing this question before the House. It is certainly an important question, and, under the circumstances, perhaps it is advisable that the matter should be discussed. At the same time, it must be admitted that there is great difficulty in discussing a question which .may be, later on, the subject of further negotiations between Great Britain, on behalf of Canada, and the United States. In such a discussion, views might be expressed that would later on impair the value of negotiations. Consequently, perhaps, it would be better that parliament should refrain as much as possible from discussing such questions. But in such discussions, we should certainly eliminate considerations of party advantage. These international questions are of such importance that the country should be a unit upon them. If it were found that great differences of opinion existed between members of this House upon questions which may be the subject of future negotiations, the freedom of negotiation would be impaired. My hon. friend from Digby and my hon. friend from South Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) have thought fit to bring into the discussion questions of party politics. I am extremely sorry that such a thing should have been done. I may be in a position, later on, to show that, so far as the government is concerned there is certainly no responsibility, because what has been done has been done in such a way that the government could not be held responsible. If hon. members opposite find it prudent to discuss the question from the party point of view, I would call their attention to the fact that this question of the Bay of Fundy was practically settled by the treaty of 1888, which was negotiated by Sir Charles Tupper, who was at one time leader of the Conservative party and thought fit to exclude the Bay of Fundy from the effect of the treaty.
Now, Sir, my hon. friends opposite have found it advisable to discuss the part taken by the Minister of Justice in connection with the settlement of this question, and of other questions which were settled by the

Hague Tribunal. The hon. the Minister of Justice, along with the British Ambassador, had charge of those negotiations, and I think the success which Canada has achieved before that tribunal shows that very great credit is due to the Minister of Justice for the work he performed in relation thereto. My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson) and my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) have said that the Minister of Justice had gone up and down the country giving lectures upon this question. That is quite true, but it was not done at the initiative of the Minister of Justice himself, but in obedience to invitations from clubs and public bodies to discuss these important national questions. He could not do otherwise, under the circumstances. The facts that he brought out in those addresses have given us more information upon the subject than the community generally was aware of. It is certainly unfair to disparage the work which has been done by the Minister of Justice in connection with the Atlantic fisheries. He devoted many months to that work, not only in the preliminary negotiations, but in the preparation of the case, and in the conduct of the case after the matter was brought before the court at the Hague. 1 think Canada must feel great satisfaction in the fact that we have won on the two most important points submitted to that tribunal, namely, our right to legislate with regard to the treaty coast, and on the question of the bays. When I was in Washington the other day with the Minister of Justice I was able to observe the high opinion which is entertained of him by the representatives of the United States government, and the respect which they have for his legal attainments. His opinion is regarded there, as it is regarded here, as that of a gentleman of the highest legal ability.
Now, Sir, my horn, friend from Cape Breton has thought proper to introduce into the discussion a letter which was written by Mr. Ewart some time ago, and which [was published in the newspapers. Mr. Ewart thought that the construction which was put upon his letter was not an accurate one, and when he knew that this debate had been adjourned, he called upon me and asked me if I would be kind enough to read before the House a letter which he gave me. I will read the letter, because I think it is only fair to the Minister of Justice, and to Mr. Ewart also, that it should go upon the ' Hansard
March 4, 1911.
Dear Mr. Brodeur,-Mr. Maddin is quite mistaken in his belief that my letter 'was evoked, by the fact that the minister had gone up and down this country, speaking before the Canadian Club, before the Bar Association, in this House on December 2, last, and in Halifax during the Christmas holidays, lauding men who were not entitled to his laudation/ etc. It was written, as it Mr. BRODEUR.
says, because of newspaper statements.
I was present at the Canadian Club luncheon, at which Sir Allen spoke and afterwards I thanked him for his kind reference to my work, saying that he had been 'altogether too generous '-meaning that while he had praised my work in connection with the preparation of the case, he had said nothing as to his own, in connection with the diplomatic side of it. So far from objecting to his addresses in Halifax and Toronto, I was aware of his invitations to those places and I ventured to offer him some suggestions that might be useful to him.
And it is not the fact that I am in the least envious of Sir Allen's praise of Sir William Robson's work. I doubt if language could be found which would fully express my own admiration of it, and, I may add, of the work of Sir Robert Finlay. I envy the force and style of those men and not any encomiums which their merits have brought them.
I am, dear Mr. Brodeur,
Yours sincerely,


JOHN S. EWART,
[Stage Direction]
Now, Sir, in the discussion which has taken place on this question, some disparaging remarks have been made in reference to the part which Mr. Bryce, the British ambassador, has taken in matters in dispute between Canada and the United States. I am extremely sorry that anything should have been said in this House underestimating the value of the co-operation which Mr. Bryce has given to the Canadian government. Not only in this instance, but in all other disputes between the two countries. Mr. Bryce has performed services of very great value to Canada, and not only to Canada, but to the whole British Empire. Mr. Bryce, on account of his famous book on the American commonwealth, in which he described so accurately the institutions of the United States, was in a high degree persona grata to the people of the United States. I may say, however, that when Mr. Bryce was first appointed British ambassador at Washington, there was some feeling among certain classes in Canada that he was likely to be too favourably disposed towards the United States. That feeling, I can assure the House, was not at all shared by the Canadian government, but it is a fact that some feeling of that kind did exist in certain sections of this country. I am glad to say now that this feeling has entirely disappeared, and it is now recognized on all hands that Mr. Bryce has succeeded in bringing about more cordial and friendly relations, not only between the United States and Canada, but between the United States and Great Britain. He has succeeded in maintaining harmoniously both Canadian and British interests, and I may say that he has come to be regarded even as the ambassador of Canada. Some time ago we were glad to see him visit this country, in order to get acquainted with our people and with our institutions, to

inform himself upon public questions, in order that he might be more useful in aiding to settle the issues between the two nations. His visits to Ottawa have been fruitful in that respect, and I hope we will often have an ^opportunity of seeing Ambassador Bryce in this country. The effort to disparage the work which has been done by Mr. Bryce since he has been the British ambassador at Washington is certainly unfair to him when we consider what he has accomplished while he has filled that important position. He was appointed in 1908. I find that since that time no less than ten treaties which concerned Canada and the United States have been negotiated by Mr. Bryce. These treaties are as fol-j lows:	,
1.	General arbitration treaty 4th April, 1908.
2.	Protection of food fishes, 11th April, 1908.
3.	Demarcation of boundaries, 11th April, 1908.
4.	Conveyance of prisoners, 18th May, 1908.
5.	Reciprocity in towing and wrecking, 18th May, 1908.
6.	Boundary waters, 11th May, 1908.
7.	North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration, 27th January, 1909.
^8^ Passamaquoddy Bay boundary 1st May,
9. Pecuniary claims, 18th August, 1910.
Then there is the agreement which was made the other day when my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice and myself were in Washington, to settle the legality of the legislation which has been passed by the Canadian parliament concerning fisheries on the Atlantic coast. There is also the treaty with reference to pelagic sealing. I do not know whether that treaty has yet been signed, but it is certainly to be signed in a few days, if not already signed. Every hon. member of this House knows that the North Atlantic Coast Fisheries Arbitration Treaty, signed on the 27th January, 1909, made provision for the settlement of a difficulty which has been existing between the two countries for nearly a century. So, Mr. Speaker, within a period of a little more than two years, Mr. Bryce has been able to settle all of these outstanding difficulties, some of which were in existence for many years and, under these circumstances, I "say that it is unfair to disparage the work which has been carried on by him.
Mr. MADDIN.: If I have the permission of the minister, I would like to say there was no observation made from this side of the House on Friday afternoon last disparaging to the British ambassador. or casting any reflection upon him whatsoever. He will read ' Hansard ' in vain to find any reflection. But, it was pointed out from this side of the House that the Canadian government had the right to confirm any contract which was submitted to
the tribunal, and that this government in ratifying that contract or agreement, or in failing to ratify it, had neglected the rights of the Atlantic fishermen, and we cast the responsibility upon this government and not upon the British ambassador.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: ities or notes which had been exchanged between the contracting parties, but which were not included formally in the treaty itself. It very often happens in these negotiations that these notes are not included in the treaty, but-form part of what we call modalities.


Mr. JAMESON.: Is the note exchanged between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Boot of the 27th January, 1909, to which I referred included and printed in the case which he has in his hand?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I see it is not printed, and I do not know whether there has ever been any such document exchanged. From reading over the documents which we have before us I get the impression that no such note was exchanged between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Boot on the 27th January, 1909. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice has stated the circumstances under which that agreement came to be made, and I do not know why I should not immediately discuss this point. In negotiating the treaty they came to the discussion of the merits of question number five which was as to whether the three marine miles should be measured from headland to headland of bays and whether the Bay of Fundy should be included. Mr. Root, as has been stated by the Minister of Justice, took very strong ground and said:
Nothing in that submission is to affect one way or the other the position of the Bay of Fundy or what is termed, innocent passage through the Gut of Canso.
That, as the hon. Minister of Justice says, was made a sine qua non by the United States of the reference to arbitration.


George Eulas Foster: Is that an exact statement by Mr. Boot, and if so from what source is he quoted?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is from a statement made by the Minister of Justice.


George Eulas Foster: The Minister of Marine did not read it from any document?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I was reading an extract from the speech of the Minister of Justice reported in 'Hansard.'


George Eulas Foster: Is that a mere matter of memory or is it a matter of record?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Minister of Justice informs me that in the first draft the Bay of Fundy was specially mentioned excluding it, and then that a formal understanding was arrived at that the arbitration would not affect the Bay of Fundy.


George Eulas Foster: Is that a matter of record?


Sir ALLEN AYLESWORTH.: I explained on Friday night the position of matters in Mr. BRODEUR.
that regard, saying that according to my best recollection the very first draft agreement to refer to the arbitration contained a separate clause that nothing in connection with the arbitration was to affect the rights of the United States in the Bay of Fundy. That clause always thereafter appeared in each subsequent draft. When it came to be a matter of settling the final details I did not like the language of the clause and I made the suggestion myself that the same purpose could be effected by an interchange of notes between the parties. That course was accordingly taken.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is abundantly clear that the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy was not a question for which this government is responsible, but was a condition sine qua non set up by the United States government before entering the arbitration.


Clarence Jameson: We have not yet cleared up the question in regard to this note of January 27, 1909.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: So far as the Minister of Justice remembers there was no formal note exchanged on that date.


Clarence Jameson: The minister seems to think I have spoken of the absence of this note, or the non production of it as being suspicious. Perhaps he did not mean that, but that was the tenor of his remarks. I wash to say that if he has not the note before him I would refer him to a mention of it in a letter from Mr. Bryce to Mr. Bacon, dated March 4, 1909. Just read what is said by Mr. Bryce in that note:


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I will come to that in a minute.


Clarence Jameson: Would it be convenient to refer to it now; the minister does not appear to have seen the reference?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I have.


Clarence Jameson: That is clear evidence that there is a note of that date.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Before we come to the 4th of March; let us see what was done after January 27, 1909. There was a draft signed between Mr. Root and Mr. Bryce, but of course that did not make the treaty effective because under the constitution of the United States a treaty must be assented to by the Senate which, in that respect discharges executive functions. The United States Senate did approve of this treaty but with the condition that the Bay of Fundy should be excluded from the consideration of the tribunal; and on that point I refer to a letter sent by Mr. Bacon to Mr. Bryce, which has not yet been read to the House, but which is to be found in

the appendix to the case of the United States, and which reads:
Department of State, Feb. 21, 1909.
Excellency, I have the honour to inform you that the Senate, by its resolution of the 18th inst. gave its advice and consent to the ratification of the special agreement between the United States and Great Britain, signed on January 27, 1909, for the submission to the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague of questions relating to fisheries on the North Atlantic coast.
In giving this advice and consent to the ratification of the special agreement, and as a part of the act of ratification, the Senate states in the resolution its understanding:
That it is agreed by the United States and Great Britain that question 5 of the series submitted, namely,'from where must be mea-suied the three marine miles of any of the coasts, bays, creeks or harbours referred to i;i said article/ does not include any question as to the Bay of Eundy considered as a whole apart from its bays or creeks or as to innocent passage through the Cut of Can-so and that the respective views or contentions of the United States and Great Britain on either subject shall be in no wise prejudiced by anything in the present arbitration, and that this agreement on the part of the United States will be mentioned in the ratification of the special agreement and will in effect, form part of this special agreement.
In thus formally confirming what I stated to you orally, I have the honour to express the hope that you will in like manner formally confirm the assent of His Majesty's government to this understanding which you heretofore stated to me orally, and that you wilj be prepared at an early day to exchange the notes confirming the special agreement as provided for therein and in the general arbitration convention of June 5, 1908.
I have the honour to be, with the highest consideration, your excellency's most obedient servant,


ROBERT BACON.
[Stage Direction]
His Excellency the Rt. Hon. James Bryce,
&c., &c., &c.
This document, I think, answers the question which has been put by the hon. member for North Toronto, as to whether there was some document showing that there was an understanding when the treaty was signed on the 27th of January, 1909. The fact that Mr. Bacon, the Secretary of State, states in his letter to Mr. Bryce that there was an oral understanding before, makes me believe that there was no exchange of documents between them, and I am informed by the Minister of Justice that Mr. Bacon was present during all the negotiations which were carried on between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Root, and he took the place of the Secretary of State on the day of the signing of the treaty, or the next day afterwards. Now, here is the United States Senate saying: We are willing to approve of that treaty, but on the condition that the Bay of Fundy shall be excluded, and later, on the 4th of March, there was an exchange of notes ratifying the treaty 148
made between the British ambassador and the United States Secretary of State. I suppose it is not necessary for me to read them.
Clarence Jameson: My question had reference to the interchange of notes on the 27th of January.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There was no interchange of notes on the 27th of January.


Clarence Jameson: That is what I asked the minister to permit me to explain, but he would not allow me to do so. That there was an interchange of notes on the 27th of January, 1909, between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Root is evidenced by the fact that Mr. Bryce, in his note of the 4th of March to Mr. Bacon, uses these words:
This understanding (that is, that the Bay of Fund.v should be excluded from the operation of the award) is that which was embodied in note9 exchanged between your predecessor (that was Mr. Root) and myself on the 27th of January, and is that expressed in the above mentioned resolution of the Senate of the United States.
The note of the 27th of January is the one we are looking for.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The Minister of Justice tells me that he did not know anything about these notes, but there seems to be some difference between the two letters. In the letter of the 21st of February, 1909, which I have just read, from Mr. Bacon to Mr. Bryce, there is reference to an oral understanding. Of course, Mr. Bryce, in his letter of the 4th of March to Mr. Bacon speaks of notes that were exchanged between his predecessor and himself on the 27th of January. Well, that does not alter the situation very much, because whether the objection was made by the Senate itself or by the United States representatives, there is no doubt of this, that the United States would not make a treaty unless the question of. the Bay of Fundy were excluded When we come to discuss the treaty of 1888 we shall find that the United States then took the ground that the question of the Bay of Fund.v should be excluded, and that it should not be treated the same as other bays mentioned in that treaty.


Clarence Jameson: The minister misses the point altogether. The whole point is this, that according to the interchanged note of the 27th of January, 1909, the government of Canada consented to the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy on that date, whereas the Senate of the United States did not resolve that it must be excluded until the 16th day of the following month.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not think that it makes any difference at all, or that I have missed the point of my hon. friend. He charges the government with being respon-

sible for the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy. I say that charge is not well founded, because when we came to negotiate the United States would not consent to include it. During all these negotiations the United States were against including the Bay of Fundy in the question to be adjudicated upon by the tribunal. In this connection I may say that my hon. friend from Cape Breton (Mr. Maddin) stated that the Minister of Justice was in these negotiations representing His Excellency Lord Grey, the Governor General of Canada. I think he must have misunderstood the Minister of Justice, because it was never stated by him that he was representing His Excellency the Governor General.


James William Maddin: Sir Edward Grey. I would like to point out to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries that ' Hansard ' is so mutilated and so badly reported that he cannot place very much reliance on it. That is absolutely true of ' Hansard ' for the last four Friday evenings. It is not only my experience, but the experience of other hon. members who had occasion to speak in the House. I am quite sure, speaking from the front bench, my accent and pronunciation are clear and distinct enough to enable me to be properly reported in ' Hansard.' It was not done, and any one who was in the House will recognize a very mutilated report of last Friday evening. It was Sir Edward Grey that I had reference to, and not His Excellency the Governor General.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not a matter of great importance to the discussion whether the Minister of Justice was representing Lord Grey or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. As a matter of fact, in the negotiations carried on at Washington he was acting for the Canadian Government, and later on, when the case was submitted to The Hague Tribunal, and the preparation of the case was entrusted to him, he was not acting as the representative of the Canadian government, but as the agent- of the British government, and in that way was representing, of course, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sir Edward Grey.


Clarence Jameson: Who was representing the government of Canada on that occasion?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The case was submitted, as all international questions are submitted. by the British agent, who is, of course, responsible directly to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, but in this case the Minister of Justice represented Canada also. There were counsel engaged and paid, I think, exclusively by the Canadian government, such as Mr. Ewart and some others. Why was the Bay of Fundy excluded? I have just shown that throughout the negotiations the United States refused to include Mr. BRODEUlt.
it. In the report which I have just quoted of the proceedings of the Senate, I find a letter from Mr. Bacon to Mr. Bryce on the 21st February, 1909, which also shows that the American authorities were insisting on excluding the bay. Why did the United States authorities take this course? Well, the question as to whether the Bay of-Fundy was covered by the treaty of 1818 is a very old one. That treaty provided that the Americans could not fish except at three miles outside the bays. But what was the meaning of the word ' Bay '? Did it cover bays like the Bay of Fundy, the Bale des Chaleurs, Plecentia Bay in Newfoundland, and some others which are more than six or ten miles across? That question caused a good deal of friction, particularly between the province of Nova Scotia and the United States, because the other provinces were not interested with the exception perhaps of New Brunswick. The main contention seemed to have been between the province of Nova Scotia and the United States. We have very often had it said that the blame for the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy should be put on the shoulders of Lord Aberdeen, because of the letter which Lord Aberdeen sent to Mr. Everett on the 10th 'of March, 1845, which letter I shall quote in a few minutes. But it is only fair to the British authorities that I should mention the fact that this step then taken by Lord Aberdeen, who was at the time British Minister of Foreign Affairs, was taken at the suggestion of some members of the cabinet of Nova Scotia and of the governor of that province. Mr. Everett, then" United States minister, contended in his letter of May, 1844, that the Bay of Fundy was not a bay, which came within the treaty prohibition, although he admitted that the smaller bays within the Bay of Fundy did come within it. Of these smaller bays, there are not less than five, which aTe not more than six miles wide each. In his letter of May, 1844, to the British Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Everett said that the American fishermen had the right to go into the Bay of Fundy, but admitted that they could not fish in the other bays inside 'that bay. This letter of Mr. Everett was submitted to the government and the cabinet of Nova Scotia; and as the result of their deliberations. Lord Portland, then governor of Nova Scotia, sent the following letter to the Colonial Office, which will be found interesting under the circumstances. It will be found at page 136 of the Appendix. Here is what he said:
In respect to the expediency of relaxing the strict rule which has hitherto been declared applicable to American vessels found fishing within the limits of the Bay of Fundy, I have found it difficult to arrive at a con-

elusion, because although some members of the Executive Council believe, with myself, that such a concession, provided it led to no other of a like nature, would not be productive of injury to Nova Scotia, and might in fairness be granted, other members of the board, among whom is the Attorney General, entertain a strong opinion to the contrary.
When, however, I perceive that Mr. Everett, in his note of the 25tli May, 1814, addressed to Lord Aberdeen, admits that (in estimating the distance of three miles from the shore within which American fishermen are not permitted to approach) it is 'the intent of the treaty as it is in itself reasonable to have regard to the general line of the coast and to consider its bays, creeks and harbours, that is the indentations so accounted, as included within that line,' which I take to be an acquiescence in the opinion of Messrs. Dodson and Wilde, that the distance within which American fishermen must not approach is three miles from the line drawn from headland to headland, taking the general configuration of the coast; I cannot but conceive that a great portion of what I have contended for (in my despatch No. 75, date May 8, 1841, addressed to Lord John Russell) on the part of the province, is conceded, and it is therefore my unreserved opinion, provided always that this interpretation of Mr. Everett's phraseology be correct, that that which is now asked by the Americans may be granted, without evil consequences, if due care be taken that no further pretentions can hereafter be founded on the concession.
In this letter we have the admission by the governor of Nova Scotia if the Canadian rights in the other bays weTe reserved, he did not see a great deal of harm in the concession asked for, namely, that the Bay of Fundy should be considered as an open sea. It seems to me that the letter which my hon. friend read must be interpreted in the light of the correspondence between Mr. Everett and the governor ol Nova Scotia and the Minister of Colonial Affairs.
When my hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), says that there is a condition mentioned in the letter of Lord Aberdeen which has not been complied with, I think that he is making a mistake. The cohten-tion made by the American authorities is that the condition gave the exclusive right to the fishermen of Nova Scotia, to fish in the bays which are within the Bay of Fundy, but that the relaxation was made in such terms that American fishermen could fish in the bay itself. In other words, the province of Nova Scotia was willing to accept that the Bay of Fundy should be excluded, or that there should be a relaxation of the conditions though the other bays within the Bay of Fundy were not to be excluded. My hon. friend interprets the condition made in the letter of Lord Aberdeen as being a condition in Tegard to all the bays of Canada. He is mistaken. Let us 148}
read again this part of the letter of Lord Aberdeen:
The undersigned has accordingly much pleasure in announcing to Mr. Everett, the determination which Her Majesty's government have come to relax in favour of the United States fishermen, that right which Great Britain has hitherto exercised, of excluding those fishermen from the British portion of the Bay of Fundy, and they are prepared to direct their colonial authorities to allow, henceforward, the United States fishermen to pursue their avocations in any part of the Bay of Fundy, provided they do not approach, except in the cases specified in the treaty .of 1818, within three miles of the entrance of any bay on the coast of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick.
Now, if we take the last words and compare them with the words we find in the letter of Mr. Everett, we come to the conclusion that, When they speak of the condition excluding them from other bays of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, that means bays within the Bay of Fundy and not outside.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: The minister (Mr. Brodeur) differs from the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) in that respect. At page 671 of the Revised ' Hansard,' the Minister of Justice describes that stipulation in these words:
Upon the stipulation that as to the remainder of the maritime coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, the claims of United States fishermen should cease.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Precisely. If it had been a question of other bays in Quebec and Newfoundland, it would have been so stated in the letter, but it was not stated, it was simply a reference to bays of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and in reading the letter of Lord Horton and Mr. Everett, I am led to believe that there is a great deal of force in the contention of the Americans that this applies purely and simply to bays within the Bay of Fundy. I may be mistaken in my interpretatilon of the law, but I think the hon. gentleman will see from the letters I have mentioned that there is a'great deal of force in the contention of the American authorities.


Clarence Jameson: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Brodeur) says I am mistaken in the view I took the other evening, he says that the Minister of Justice is mistaken.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not say that the Minister of Justice is wrong, but I say there is a great deal of force in the argument made by the American authorities. My hon. friend says that this is a condition which the Americans have not fulfilled. The Americans say:	We have fulfilled our
obligation; we contend that the reservation was of the bays within the Bay of Fundy

and this we have not violated. Mr. Everett in his answer to t'he letter of Lord Aberdeen, maintained the absolute right of the United States fishermen to go into the Bay of Fundy. This letter was dated 25th March, 1845, and the following is an extract from it:
March 25, 1845.
While he desires, however, without reserve, to express his sense of the amicable disposition evinced by Her Majesty's government on this occasion in relaxing in favour of the United States the exercise of what, after deliberate consideration fortified by high legal authority, is deemed an unquestioned right of Her, Majesty's government, the undersigned would be unfaithful to his duty did he omit to remark to Lord Aberdeen that no arguments have at any time been adduced to shake the confidence of the government of the United States in their own construction of the treaty. While they have- even been prepared to admit, that in the letter of one expression of that instrument there is some reason for claiming a right to exclude United States fishermen from the Bay of Fundy (it being difficult to deny to that arm of the sea the name of ' bay' which long geographical usage has assigned to it), they have even strenuously maintained that it is only on their own construction of the entire article that its known design in reference to the regulation of the fisheries admits of being carried into effect.	_
The undersigned does not make this observation for the sake of detracting from the liberality evinced by Her Majesty's government, in relaxing from what they regard as their right; but it would be placing his own government in a false position to accept as mere favour that for which they have so long and strenuously contended as due to them under the constitution.
One point is very clear, and that is that a relaxation was granted under the letter of Lord Aberdeen as to the right of the Americans to fish in the Bay of Fundy. Whether there were or were not conditions attached, and whether these have been fulfilled there may he differences of opinion, but the fact remains that there has been a relaxation, and from 1845 until to-day that relaxation has always been maintained by the British authorities. If the relaxation had been made on the conditions that my hon. friend claims, and if these conditions had not been fulfilled, I suppose we should see some correspondence by which the British authorities would have mentioned the matter to the United States government. But they have not done so, and until today they have always declared that the Americans might fish within the Bay of Fundy.
Now, there is another point that has not been brought out in the discussion which, I think also proves to a very large extent that the- contentions of the Americans that the matter was settled by a treaty, has Mr. BRODEUR.
a great deal of force and should carry weight in any negotiations we may have. I do not wish to be understood as stating that I approve of the contentions made by the Americans in that respect, because 1 do not think it will be advisable to do so in view of the negotiations which may be made later on. But there is a great deal of force, I must admit, in the contention that the Bay of Fundy question has been settled by the Treaty of 1853. The Americans contend, first, that there was a relaxation by the letters of Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett, and also that the Treaty of 1853 disposed of this question of the Bay of Fundy. This treaty is called the Russell-fngersoll treaty, and is dated 20th February, 1853. It was made between the United States and Great Britain.
The article of the treaty provided that the pecuniary claims which were made by certain parties should be submitted to a court of arbitration, to be composed of two men, one appointed by the United States government and one appointed lay the British government. The treaty further provided that if these two men could not agree upon any point then a third arbitrator should be appointed. Amongst the claims which were referred to this tribunal under this treaty was the claim made by the United States concerning the seizure of the schooner ' Washington,' which has been mentioned several times in the debate. This vessel was fishing about ten miles from the shore of the Bay of Fundy, and she was seized by the Nova Scotia authorities, I think, as fishing within the territorial waters. A great deal of correspondence was exchanged with regard to that seizure. It was contended on the part of the United States authorities that as the vessel was seized in an open sea, that as the Bay of Fundy was an open sea, consequently the Canadian authorities had no right to make the seizure. It was contended by the British authorities that the Bay of Fundy was a bay, and that consequently the United States had no right to fish there. The matter was referred to that court. I will read article 2 of that treaty in which the procedure is set out:-
The high contracting parties agree that all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, upon the government of the United States, and all claims on the part of corporations, companies, or private individuals, citizens of the United States, upon the government of Her Britannic Majesty, which may have been presented to either government for it9 interposition with the other since the signature of the treaty of peace and friendship concluded between Great Britain and the United States of America at Ghent, on the 24th of December, 1814, and which yet remained unsettled, as well as any other claims which may be presented within the time specified in article 111 hereinafter, shall be

referred to two commissioners, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say. One commissioner shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty, and one by the President of the United States. In ease of the death, absence or incapacity of either commissioner, or in the event of either commissioner omitting or ceasing to act as such, Her Britannic Majesty, or the President of the United States respectively shall forthwith name another person to act as commissioner in the place or stead of the coimmissioner originally named.
The commissioner shall then, and before proceeding to any other business, name some third person to act as arbitrator or umpire in any case or cases on which they may themselves differ in opinion. If they should not be able to agree upon the name of such third person, they shall each name a person; and in each and every case in which the com-tmissioners may differ in opinion as to the decision which they ought to give, it shall be determined by lot which of the two persons so named shall be the arbitrator or umpire in that particular case.
Well, under the provisions of that treaty the ' Washington ' claim was referred to the commissioners, who sat and heard the case. The majority of them decided that the Bay of Fundy was an open sea, and that consequently the ship's owner had a valid claim against the Canadian government. The Canadian authorities, or the British authorities, I do not know which, paid the $3,000 which were awarded as the amount of damages sustained by the seizure of the vessel.


George Eulas Foster: Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the commissioners agreed on the $3,000 damages?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Two of them agreed, the majority.


George Eulas Foster: I think the two commissioners did not agree, they absolutely disagreed, and the umpire gave the decision.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The two commissioners disagreed, and the umpire sided with the American commissioner, which constituted a majority of the tribunal. On that point I may quote the conclusion of the award on page 217, which says:-
The conclusion is therefore in my mind irresistible that the Bay of Fundy is not a British bay, not a bay within the meaning of the word as used in the treaties of 1783 and 1818.
Now that was the question discussed, or reported, in the leading cases of international law at page 125. After mentioning the facts concerning the treaty of 1818 and the question of the Bay of Fundy, we read:-
It was subsequently held by a commission appointed to adjudicate on certain claims arising between the two countries, in the case of the schooner ' Washington ' which had been seized and declared forfeit for fishing in the Bay of Fundy, although at a distance of ten
miles from the shore, that that bay, which is over sixty ttniles wide and about one hundred and forty miles long, and which is as to one of its headlands within United States territory, did not constitute a territorial bay or water within the meaning of the exclusive clause of the treaty, but must be considered an open arm of the sea.
He quotes Scott, page 153, and Taylor, page 297. Now that was the situation until 1888, until the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty. My hon. friend from Digby has tried to-throw a great deal of responsibility on this government. As I have just shown, byreading the conclusion of the award, the tribunal decided that the Bay of F'undy, being an arm of the sea, the vessel could not be seized in its waters.


Clarence Jameson: Is it not because they thought that declaration on the part of the referee, was an obiter dictum? '


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend will not dispute_ this fact. A seizure was made of a vessel in the Bay of Fundy. Is it true or not that what the arbitrators appointed to dispose of this question decided, was that ^.e.s.e^zure was illegal because it was made within the Bay of Fundy and the Bay of Fundy was an arm of the open sea?


James William Maddin: I would like to point out to the minister that the tribunal were only asked to fix damages. They were not asked to determine whether the water upon which the seizure took place was an arm of the open sea or a bay. They were not international lawyers, they were not men trained in the law. Mr. Bates was a member of a banking firm who knew nothing about international law, but who did know how to assess damages. He fixed the damages at $3,000 and there his function ended. It was not part of his duty to determine whether the Bay of Fundy was a bay or part of the open sea.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am afraid that the argument of my hon. friend is not founded on the facts as we find them on record. There was a claim made against the Canadian government as a result of the Canadian government having seized a vessel in the Bay of Fundy. There was not only a question of damages. If it had only been a question of damages we did not need to negotiate a treaty for the purpose of dealing with it. No treaty was necessary for that puropse, but the tribunal which adjudicated the case was called upon to decide whether the seizure was legal or illegal. The tribunal decided that as the seizure was made in the Bay of Fundy and as the Bay of Fundy was, in their mind, an arm of the open sea, damages were due to the owners of the vessel. If the Bay of Fundy had not been, in the mind of the authorities of the United States, open to question with regard to our jurisdiction why should


'4695 COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
they have submitted this question to the court? They submitted it for the purpose of having a decision and the decision was rendered in their favour. That was the situation until 1888. In 1888 negotiations were entered into between the British, the Canadian and the United States: authorities for a new treaty with regard to the fisheries. Sir Charles Tupper represented the Canadian government, and he was also one of the negotiators who signed the treaty. My hon. friend states that this government has been derelict in its duty in connection with the fact that the Bay of Fundy has been excluded from the reference to the Hague Tribunal. But what does he say of Sir Charles Tupper who, in 1888 excluded the Bay of Fundy? My hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Foster) who was an active member of the government at that time, approved of the treaty although it excluded the Bay of Fundy. Provision was made for the delimitation of hays in a certain way, but in that treaty which was made by Sir Charles Tupper, in the treaty which was approved by the Canadian parliament, in the treaty which was approved by the government of that time, it was stated formally that the Bay of Fundy was excluded. I suppose this fact will not be disputed by my hon. friend. Let me read to him the treaty of 1888. First I will take article 4:
At or near the following bays the limits of exclusion under Article 1, of the Convention of October 20, 1818, at points more than three marine miles from low water mark, shall be established by the following lines, namely.
Then they start with the Baie des Cha-leurs.
At the Baie des Chaleurs the line from the Light at Birch Point on Miscou Island to Macquereau Point light; at the Bay of Mira-michi, the line from the Light at Point Escu-minac to the light on the Eastern Point of Tabisintac Gully; at Egmont Bay, in Prince Edward Island, the line from the Light at Cape Egmont to the Light at West Point, and of St. Ann's Bay, in the province of Nova Scotia, the line from Cape Smoke to the Light at Point Anconi.
Then they speak of the bays in Newfoundland. Coming back to Canada they say:
At or near the following bays the limits of exclusion shall be three marine miles seaward from the following lines, namely:
At or near Barrington Bay, in Nova Scotia, the line from the Light on Stoddart Island to the Light on the South Point of Cape Sable, thence to the Light at Baccaro Point; at Chedabucto and St. Peter's bays, the line from Cranberry Island Light to Green Island Light, thence to Point Rouge; at Mira Bay, the line from the Light on the East Point of Scatari Island to the northeasterly point of Cape Morien; and at Placentia Bay, m Newfoundland, the line from Latine Point, on the eastern mainland shore, to the most southerly point of Red Island, thence by the most southerly point of Merasheen Island to the mainland.
Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Long Island and Bryer Island, on St. Mary's Bay, in Nova Scotia, shall, for the purpose of delimitation, be taken as the coasts of such bay.
We see by the provisions of article 4 that they determine where the lines are to be drawn There is no word as to the Bay of Fundy. Why should not Sir Charles Tupper have provided also for the Bay of Fundy? Why was the Bay of Fundy excluded? Because I suppose the Americans contended, as they are contending to-day, that this question was settled by the correspondence of Lord Aberdeen and Mr. Everett, or by the treaty of 1853? At all events Sir Charles Tupper did not mention the matter at all in this treaty. But I go further and say-yes, he did mention it. If the Bay of Fundy is an open sea the question is disposed of, but if it is a bay what does he say in Article 3?
The three marine miles mentioned in Article 1, of the Convention of October 20, 1818, shall be measured seaward from low water mark; but at every bay, creek, or harbour, not otherwise specially provided for in this treaty, such three marine miles shall be measured seaward, from a straight line drawn across the bay, creek or harbour, in the part nearest the entrance at the first point where the width does not exceed ten marine miles.
What is the meaning of that? First, the treaty provides that some bays will have to be delimited in such and such a way. The Bay of Fundy is not included. Then, in article 3 where the bays are not specially mentioned they say that the three marine miles shall start from the point at which the bays narrow to a width of ten miles. What is the result? The result i3 that according to the treaty of 1888, the line of the Bay of Fundy will not be at a point opposite the county of Annapolis or opposite the county of Digby, but near the Basin of Minas and near Chignecto bay. That is absolutely clear and my hon.; friend will not dispute it, I think. How can the hon. gentleman say that the Minister of Justice was remiss in his duty in excluding the Bay of Fundy when his own former political leader Sir Charles Tupper when he was in power-and the hon. member for North Toronto was a member of his government-approved of the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy? In view of all this, is it not unfair and unjust to state that we have neglected our duty. Surely, it is plain from the correspondence exchanged between Lord Aberdeen and the governor of Nova Scotia in 1845, that the Bay of Fundy was excluded at that early date. The Americans contend it was excluded by the treaty of 1853, and in the treaty of 1888 we have a formal declaration that the Bay of Fundy, as to which my hon. friend (Mr. Jameson) says we have not fulfilled our duty, was also excluded.


Clarence Jameson: The Minister of Marine apparently misses the point. In the case of the treaty of 1888 Canada was getting an undoubted title to the other bays as territorial waters, and was giving up or relaxing the question as to the Bay of Fundy out of the ten mile width. In the present case the whole subject matter of all the bays of Canada was to be arbitrated upon, and had the arbitration gone adversely to us we might have lost the whole of them. That was the difference between the two cases.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Is it very likely that Sir Charles Tupper asked for the inclusion of the Bay of Fundy in 1888, and I suppose the representatives of the United States met that request with the same argument that was presented to us, namely, that they wanted the Bay of Fundy excluded from the reference. It was not mentioned in the treaty of 1888, and I have proven that that part of the Bay of Fundy about which the hon. gentleman is so anxious was declared to be absolutely an open sea, and that it should not be considered as a bay.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Mr. Speaker, when you left the Chair at six o'clock I was discussing the effect of the treaty of 1888. I showed that that treaty had virtually withdrawn the Bay of Fundy from any claim as to oui right to exclude American fishermen. In fact, as I have shown, some bays were withdrawn as being delimited in such and such a way, and no specific mention is made of the Bay of Fundy. There is a general clause in the treaty that the bays which are not specifically mentioned should be considered as territorial waters only where they are less than ten miles wide. That brings the Bay of Fundy, according to the treaty of 1888, among those which are open to American fishermen. From the mouth of the bay at Grand Manan to Chignecto, while Chig-necto bay and Minas Basin can be considered as territorial waters. Now, the leader of the opposition the other day put a question to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice in regard to Placentia bay, which is in Newfoundland territory. I do not know whether he intended to state that that bay was open from its mouth to its entire depth. From the way the question was put, I inferred that the hon. leader of the opposition believed that Placentia bay, by the treaty at Washington as well as by the Hague award, was closed from its mouth, that is, Point Bculpin to Gape -St. Mary. I do not know whether I interpreted clearly the opinion which my hon. friend expressed
or whether my inference from the question he put is correct.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that for all these bays the line of demarcation, apart from the recommendations, is to be taken from headland to headland.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: My hon. friend is mistaken as to Placentia bay, which by the Hague award is declared to be open sea from the mouth marked by a line ' fro#? Latine point, on the eastern mainlands shore, to the most southerly point of Red island, thence by the most southerly point of Merasheen island to the mainland.' That means that the bay from the mouth to Merasheen point, which would be about 40 miles inside, is open sea. My hon. friend the other day showed me a map with a straight line drawn. This line is not the one determined by the Hague award as the line to be recommended.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend knows that the award is one thing and the recommendations another. The same is true of all these bays, and Placentia bay does not stand alone in that respect.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is only a recommendation; but it is to be presumed that if the Bay of Fundy had been referred to the tribunal, the same judgment would have been rendered as in the case of Placentia bay, because at the mouth these bays are about the same width, namely, 45 miles, though the Bay of Fundy is muqh longer than the other. It is to be presumed that in such a case the tribunal would have recommended that the Bay of Fundy should be determined in the same way as it was determined in the treaty of i888. In that case all the other parts of the bay would be open to American fishermen. Though it is only a recommendation, I suppose that the two interested parties might expect that some day a definite agreement would be arrived at based on that recommendation; and so far the interested parties have been willing to act upon the recommendations that have been made. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice the other day raised the question that if we had succeeded in having the Bay of Fundy included in the reference, perhaps it would not have been especially advantageous t-o us, because it would have raised the question as to whether it could be considered a bay. As my hon. friend is aware, one of the headlands of this bay is American territory. If a line were drawn from Brier island to Grand Manan, and from Grand Manan to the other side, it would extend to American territory, and that would have raised a question which might- have embarrassed a settlement of the other question. For that reason I think mv hon. friend the Minister of Justice was fully justified in saying that in the interest of the whole
4G99

case it would perhaps be just as well to	leave the matter	as it is.
I say that the situation to-day, with regard to the Bay of Fundy, and which is the result of the treaty made in 1909, is far more favourable than what it was under the treaty of 1888. By the latter, the Bay of Fundy was opened to the American fishermen with the exception of its northern part, whereas by the present treaty, according to the agreement and according to the notes interchanged between Mr. Bryce and Mr. Bacon and according to the statement made in the United States Senate, it remains as it was before, and we have the same rights, advantages and privileges that we might have had formerly before the signing of this treaty. My hon. friend from Digby (Mr. Jameson), said that while the situation may not have been very advantageous undeT the treaty of 1888, still we had something in return. True, but we had nothing in return with regard to the Bay of Fundy. We obtained some provisions regarding the exchange of products, but, in so far as the Bay of Fundy itself was concerned, we got no compensation at all. Those who are trying to belittle what the government has done, will find that the treaty we made in 1909 is far more advantageous than the treaty made in 1888 by a former government. By this award we have gained a great deal, and I am sorry to find some of our hon. friends opposite trying to belittle its results. All Canadians who are anxious to see good relations between the two countries, should rejoice in the fact that we have already on two important matters, gained a great deal. We have gained first, the admission that we have the right to legislate with regard to those treaty coasts. That is a right which the Americans were denying us. They denied that we had the right to enact any legislation which might affect American fishermen fishing on the treaty coasts. On that point, the Hague award, which is the the Tesult especially of the work done by my hon. colleague the Minister of Justice, has given us a complete vindication. It declares that these are territorial waters, over which we have the sovereign control and with regard to which we consequently have the Tight to legislate. What else have we obtained? We know that, under the instructions given by Mr. Mitchell in 1870, when he was Minister of Marine and Fisheries, American fishing vessels could come and fish in our bays, provided they did not come within three miles of the coast or inside the bays. But what is the decision of the award in that respect? Take the Baie des Chaleurs, under the instructions given by Mr. Mitchell, when Minister of Marine and Fisheries in 1870, American fishermen Mr. BRODETTR.
could go throughout all that bay. But under this award, that bay will be closed from Berch Point on Miscou Island to Point Macquereau where the bay has a width of sixteen miles. Take the other bays, they will be clased to American fishermen inside limits as follows:
Miramichi, 14J miles.
Egmont I7J miles.
St. Peter's Bay, 18 miles.
Barrington Bay, 13 miles.
So you see the judgment^has given us great satisfaction and should' be acceptable to all those who are anxious to see good relations between the two countries.
I do not want to detain the House longer but I thought it necessary to put before the House all those facts which prove conclusively that those who try to belittle the work done by my hon. colleaghe the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) and the results of the treaty, are anything but fair or reasonable. I may also say that we are greatly indebted to Mr. Bryce for the assistance he gave us and the efforts he made in order to bring about a settlement of this question, which during nearly a century was the cause of dissension between the two countries.
If the Bay of Fundy was not referred to the tribunal, that was not due to this government or the British authorities, but to the fact that the United States authorities refused absolutely to consent to its reference. UndeT the circumstances, would we have been justified, would my hon. colleague, the Minister of Justice, have been justified, in insisting on that point and thus preventing any reference as regards Canada and leaving solely the disputes between Newfoundland and the United States to be adjudicated by the Hague Tribunal without our being present at all? The questions which affected Newfoundland were not absolutely the same as those which concerned us. In some respects they were, but in others, they were not. Take the question of the Bay of Fundy, Newfoundland had not the same interest in that matter as we had; and if today we have succeeded in having this question settled once for all, it is due to the efforts made by those I have just mentioned and especially to the arduous work of the Minister of Justice. The matter has now been definitely settled. The United States had very good grounds for the position they took in the correspondence between Mr. Everett and Lord Aberdeen in 1845 and the treaty of 1853, and the award we have to-day is far more satisfactory than was the treaty of 1888. By that treaty, the Bay of Fundy was absolutely sacrificed, and that treaty was accepted by the government of that day and Sir Charles Tupper was one of those

most prominent in negotiating it. It was accepted also by the parliament of Canada. To-day, however, according to the notes interchanged, the question is still an open one, and in the meantime the Bay of Fundy is declared Canadian territory as it has always been considered by the British and Canadian authorities.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been debated at such length that I do not intend to occupy very much of the time of the House in dealing with it. In fact, I rise more particularly for the purpose of correcting my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) in respect of some arguments he used. Before doing that, however, I would like to say that it certainly is a matter for congratulation to both countries that this treaty of arbitration was entered into, and that a settlement of some at least of the outstanding questions between the two countries has been arrived at. I only hope that the day is not far distant when a wider treaty of arbitration between Canada and the United States will be consummated, so that all questions, not only those within the scope of the present treaty, but also questions of even graver import, may be referred to the arbitrament of The Hague Tribunal. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Ayles-worth) in the course of his speech on the 2nd of December last, went pretty fully into this question. I then congratulated my hon. friend and the government upon the fact that a settlement of some of these difficulties has been arrived at. I do not know that my congratulations would have been quite so warm if I had understood the award and the scope of the questions that were put as thoroughly as I think I do at present.
The Minister of Justice referred in terms of special commendation and eulogy to the work of Sir William Robson, now Lord Robson, who was one of the counsel for Great Britain before that tribunal. I have not a word to say in criticism of that: I have not the slightest doubt that Sir William Robson deserves all the encomiums that were heaped upon him with rather a lavish hand by the Minister of Justice. But I did, at the time, regard it as a little singular that several very able counsel who appeared on that occasion for Great Britain were hardly mentioned by the Minister of Justice. I have the honour of knowing Sir Robert Finlay, and happen to have been associated with him in the discussion of legal questions before the highest court of appeal on more than one occasion, and I should be surprised indeed if the argument of Sir Robert Finlay, delivered before The Hague Tribunal on behalf of Great Britain and in support of
the rights of Canada and Newfoundland were not worthy of just as high praise as that which was lavished upon Sir William Robson. I think also that a word of commendation might be said for the very earnest and devoted work which Mr. J. S. Ewart bestowed upon his duties both in connection with the preparation of the case and in the discussion of the rights of Canada and Newfoundland before that tribunal. Upon Mr. Ewart devolved a double duty. In the first place, he had a veT.y long work of investigation, to which he devoted his time and energy without stint, for, I think, eighteen months or two years before the hearing began. And not only in that respect did he do splendid work for his country, but any one who takes the trouble to read his argument delivered before that tribunal can see plainly for himself that it was an argument of great ability and of very high order.
I think also that it might not be amiss to congratulate the country that it had as a representative upon The Hague Tribunal a man of the public experience and distinguished legal ability of the present Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. I venture to say that all that could properly be done in the interests of this country by the British representative upon that tribunal was done by Sir Charles Fitzpatrick on that occasion, and that this country owes not a little to his ability, his tact and his discrimination throughout the course of these proceedings.
I wish to speak for a moment upon one or two of the questions involved in the hearing. The first question was with regard to the rights of Great Britain over the territorial waters in which the fishermen of the United States, by the terms of the treaty, were to enjoy rights in common with the fishermen of this country and of Newfoundland. The United States put forward, as the hon. minister has very well said, an exceedingly extreme contention in that regard. They claimed the right not only to legislate in respect of these waters, but to enforce their legislation by having their own warships, if necessary, go into these waters to carry out the behests of the Congress of the United States. The government of this country had full rights in respect of the framing of the question which was submitted to the tribunal in that regard, and the Minister of Justice has made that absolutely plain. He said that the parties were so far apart from each other with regard to this question of the inherent sovereignty of Great Britain over these waters that no common understanding could be framed, and, therefore, each party was left to state its contention to be put forward before the tribunal. The contention of Great Britain was put forward in these words:

That the exercise of liberty to take fish referred to in the said article, which the inhabitants of the United States have for ever in common with the subjects of His Britannic Majesty, is subject without the consent of the United States, to reasonable regulation by Great Britain, Canada or Newfoundland in the forsm of municipal laws, ordinances or rules.
That is the contention on behalf of Great Britain, and it goes on to state examples of the regulations which might be made. Now, the tribunal sustained the able contention which had been put forward by Mr. Bryce on behalf of Canada and Newfoundland. 1 refer to the words of the Minister of Justice as given in Revised ' Hansard,' page 681:
When the award came to be pronounced on the 7th of September last, the tribunal adopted verbatim et litteratim the language which Mr. Bryce used two years ago in stating the British contention under this clause of the treaty.
I pause there for a moment to say that no hon. gentleman on this side, as I understood the argument, has said a word which could, in the slightest degree, reflect upon Mr. Bryce. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries has stated that some people in this country had apprehensions as to what might be the result when Mr. Bryce was named the British ambassador at Washington. So far as I am concerned, I have heard of none of these ' apprehensions ' and know of no one who entertained them, unless it be the Minister of Marine and Fisheries himself. I believe that Mr. Bryce has acted conscientiously and with ability and energy on behalf of the interests of the mother country and of Canada throughout the course of these difficulties at Washington. Any criticism of the form in which this treaty was made and in which these questions were- shaped is criticism not of Mr. Bryce, but of this government who were plainly responsible for every incident in these proceedings from the first to the last. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries cannot doubt that when he looks at the terms of the treaty itself, for it would have been impossible for Mr. Bryce, representing the mother country, to bind either Canada or Newfoundland in respect to this matter without the consent of Canada and Newfoundland.
The treaty in its terms provided that Great Britain had the distinct right, and therefore having the right, would be impelled to the duty of obtaining the consent of Canada and of Newfoundland in every case where the rights of Canada or of Newfoundland came into question.
Well, I was dealing with the mode in which this question had been framed, and with the award which was made thereon. Now the Minister of Justice has quoted a portion of the award which he says sets forth Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
verbatim et litteratim the exact argument, and the exact contention that was made by Mr. Bryce. The Minister of Justice in that respect stopped at a certain portion of the award, and I think it is only right that the whole position in that regard should be made clear to the House. Let us look at the reasons for the award-and I distinguish the reasons of the award from the operative part thereof-let us look at the reasons which were given by the tribunal in coming to the conclusion at which they arrived, and which is expressed in the operative part of the award. At pages 19, 20 and 21 of the copy of the award that I have, the United States put forward this contention:
That a concurrent right to co-operate in the making and enforcement of regulations is the only possible and proper security to tbeir inhabitants for the enjoyment of their liberties of fishery, and that such a right must bo held to be implied in the grant of those liberties by the treaty under interpretation.
The tribunal in dealing with that gave the following reasons for not acceding to that claim:
Because every state has to execute the obligations incurred by treaty bona fide, and is urged thereto by the ordinary sanction of international law in regard to observance of treaty obligations.
Further on:
But no reason has been shown why this treaty, in this respect, should be considered as different from every other treaty under which the right of a state to regulate the action of foreigners admitted by it on its territory is recognized.
Further on:
Because the exercise of such a right of consent by the United States would predicate an abandonment of its independence in this respect by Great Britain, and the recognition bv the latter of a concurrent right of regulation in the United iStates. But the treaty conveys only a liberty to take fish in common, and neither directly nor indirectly conveys a joint right of regulation.
Further on-I am still reading from the reasons of the tribunal:
Because on a true construction of the treaty the question does not arise whether the United States agreed that Great Britain should retain the right to legislate with regard to the fisheries in her own territory; but whether the treaty contains an abdication by Great Britain of the right which Great Britain, as tbe sovereign power, undoubtedly possessed when the treaty was made, to regulate those fisheries.
Further on:
The sovereignty of Great Britain over the coastal waters and territory of Newfoundland remains after the treaty as unimpaired as it was before. But from the treaty results an obligatory relation whereby the right of

Great Britain to exercise its right of sovereignty by making regulations is limited to such regulations as are made in good faith and are not in violation of the treaty.
Now all that sustains the portion of the award which the Minister of Justice read, and I will read it again in order that the matter may be perfectly clear. On page 23 of the award:
Now, therefore, this tribunal decides and awards as follows:
The right of Great Britain to make regulations without the consent of the United States as to the exercise of the liberty to take fish referred to in article 1 of the treaty if October 20, 1818 in the form of municipal laws, ordinances or rules of Great Britain. Canada or Newfoundland is inherent to the sovereignty of Great Britain.
The exercise of that right by Great Britain is, hotwever, limited fey the said treaty in respect of the said liberties therein granted to the inhabitants of tbe United States in that such regulations must be made bona fide and must not be in violation of tbe said treaty.
Now so far the award is in exact accordance with that interpretation given by the Minister of Justice. But that unfortunately is not all; because if you come back to the reasons which are to be found at the bottom of page 22, you find these observations by the tribunal which have special relation to the form in which the question was proposed on behalf of Canada and Newfoundland by this government:
While, therefore, unable to concede tbe claim of the United States as based on the treaty, this tribunal considers that such claim has been and is to some extent conceded in the relations now existing between tbe two parties. Whatever may have been the situation under tbe treaty of 1818 standing alone, the exercise of tbe right of regulation inherent in Great Britain has .been, and is, limited by the repeated recognition of the obligations already referred to, by the limitations and liabilities accepted in the special agreement, by the unequivocal position assumed by Great Britain in the presentation of its case before this tribunal and by the consequent view of this tribunal that it would be consistent with all the circumstances, as revealed by this record, as to the duty of Great Britain, that she should submit the reasonableness of any future regulation to such an impartial arbitral test, affording full opportunity therefor, as is hereafter recommended iinder the authority of Article 4 of the special agreement, Whenever the reasonableness of any regulation is objected to or challenged by the United States in the manner and within the time hereinafter specified in the said recommendation.	[DOT]
So up to the present time we have, in the first place, the reasons set forth plainly and distinctly by this tribunal, which confine the inherent power or sovereignty of Great Britain only within these limits, that regulations made with regard to these
fisheries must be bona fide and must not be in violation of the treaty. Then that is followed by a clear and distinct statement from this tribunal that the right of Great Britain is restricted by * the limitations and liabilities accepted in the special agreement, by the unequivocal position assumed by Great Britain in the presentation of its case before this tribunal,' showing that the inherent sovereignty of Great Britain must be cut down to the mere question as to whether these regulations are reasonable or not. And so in addition to that portion of the award which was read by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, we find this in the operative part of the award, that part of the award which binds this country as well as the United States:
Regulations which are (1) appropriate or necessary for tbe protection and preservation of such .fisheries, or (2) desirable or necessary on grounds of .public order and morals without unnecessarily interfering with the fishery itself, and in both cases equitable and fair as between local and American fishermen, .and not so framed as to give unfairly an advantage to tbe former over the latter class, are not inconsistent with the obligation to execute tbe treaty in good faith, and are, therefore, reasonable and not .in violation of the treaty.
For the decision of .the question whether a regulation is or is not reasonable, as being or not in accordance with the disposition of the treaty and not in violation thereof, the treaty of 1818 contains no special provision. By reason, however, of the form in which question 1 is put, and by further reason of the admission of Great Britain by her counsel before this tribunal that it is not now for either of the parties to the treaty to determine the reasonableness of any regulation made by Great Britain, Canada or Newfoundland, the reasonableness of such regulation, if contested, must be decided not by either of the parties, but by an impartial authority in accordance .with the principles hereinabove laid down, and in the manner preposed in the recommendations made by the tribunal in virtue of Article 4 of the agreement,
The result of that, Mr. Speaker, seems to me capable of being stated in a very few words. In the one case the power of Great Britain-that is of Canada and Newfoundland-to regulate the fisheries is subject only to the qualification that the regulation must be bona fide and must not be in violation of the treaty. That is a position that we could have maintained if this question had been prepared for the tribunal in the way in which the government should have proposed it. In other words, if the contention which, as the Minister of Justice declares, was put forward by Mr. Bryce, had been maintained in the questions submitted by the government to that tribunal the part of this award which I first quoted would have been the only part to which the tribunal would have given utterance, and we would not have

been put in a position to which I shall now devote one or two words. In the one case, the power of Great Britain (i.e. Canada and Newfoundland) to regulate the fisheries would be subject only to the qualification that the regulation must be bona fide and must not be in violation of the Treaty. The other case, the case that confronts us actually at the present time, is in which the government stated our position, we have come down to the question of . reasonable regulations which will undoubtedly be considered from the actual conditions confronting the United States fishermen. Under the award the United States can object to the reasonableness of any regulation that we may make and can insist upon a hearing and a decision of the Hague Tribunal, or some other body constituted under the decree of that tribunal. The right to regulate has in effect passed from Canada and Newfoundland, who possessed it by virtue of the inherent sovereignty of Great Britain in these waters, and it has passed to a foreign tribunal which would undoubtedly deal with this question in a spirit of compromise and cut something out of any code of regulations however reasonable. We have in effect abrogated our sovereignty over these waters in this respect. An exercise of our inherent sovereignty to regulate the fisheries can always be questioned by the United States and decided by a tribunal in which we have only one voice out of many. The Minister of Justice will see how remarkable a difference there is between the one position and the other. In the one case at any time, under our inherent sovereignty, we could have adopted any regulation whatever provided that regulation was bona fide and not in violation of the treaty of 1818. That right, by reason of the form in which the question was put and by reason of the decree of the tribunal founded upon that question, has been cut down to a pure question as to whether or not our regulations are reasonable having regard to the conditions which confront the American fisherman, and whatever regulations we may make can be questioned by the government of the United States, and when so questioned must be dealt with by a tribunal in which we have only one voice out of many. I think that is an unfortunate position, and I think it is a position which was entirely unnecessary. I am adopting in that regard the statement of the Minister of Justice himself who says that the portion of the award which he read-and he did not read the qualification-and which maintains the inherent sovereignty of Great Britain over these waters, was put forward by Mr. Bryce; and after it had been put forward by Mr. Bryce I see no reason Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
why it was departed from because had it not been departed from it is perfectly obvious from the reasons of the tribunal that it would have been fullv maintained in the award.
Now, I come to another question-the question of bays and harbours. The Minister of Justice seems to be under the impression that in so far as that is concerned some new and important rule of international law was settled. I venture to doubt that with great deference to the Minister of Justice, for whose ability and experience I have the utmost possible respect. As I understand the award it did not settle any new principle of international law. I have the minister's own language, but I will not stop just now to read it. He seemed to think not only that a new and important rule of international law had been settled, but that the tribunal, basing its decision upon the argument of Sir William Robson, had determined a different rule of international law for the waters adjoining the coast of this continent from that which has prevailed in Europe. With all deference to my hon. friend the Minister of Justice and with hesitation owing to the view that he has expressed to the contrary, I venture to differ from that opinion. As I understand the award it simply construed the words of the treaty of 1818, taking into consideration the circumstances and conditions when it was made. The word ' bays ' in that treaty had to be construed either as a term of international law-that is in what one might call the juristic sense, or it had to be construed otherwise as an ordinary geographical term, in the popular sense, in other words, as a cartological term. The tribunal simply adopted the latter construction. They said that when the negotiators of the treaty of 1818 used the word ' bays ' they simply used it in the popular and geographical sense at the time and I do not find any new rule of international law laid down. Perhaps I might refer for one moment to what the Minister of Justice has said in that regard. He said that Sir William Robson had made a very novel and beautiful argument founded on the research that he had made into former treaties, and that his argument led irresistibly to the conclusion that a different rule of international law prevailed in North America from that which obtained in the rest of the world. The tribunal, as he claimed, had decided accordingly, and the tribunal in so deciding had laid down a new and important rule of international law. I am not giving the exact language of the Minister of Justice because I do not wish to take up the time of the House in listening to long quotations, but I am giving the effect of his statement on the subject in December la3t. Bat Sir William Robson does not appear, as Mr. Ewart

has said, to have conducted any particular research into these treaties, because they had all 'been set out in the Appendix to the British case from pages 1 to 24. I looked at this volume only the other day, and I saw that they are all there. This Appendix was prepared a year before Sir William Robson made his argument. They had been referred to in this very argument by previous counsel before Sir William Robson made his excellent argument before the tribunal. I do not think that the tribunal has laid down any different rule of international law in respect to America from that which exists elsewhere. I have the award in my hand, and I shall forbear from reading to the House the reasons of the award which lead me to arrive at that conclusion. There is only one possible passage in the award that can afford the slightest foundation for the view which my hon. friend the Minister of Justice expressed in the House, but if you take that particular paragraph which is to be found at the bottom of page 35 of the edition I have in connection with other reasons which are to be found from pages 31 to 35, it does not seem to me that you can reasonably come to the conclusion that the Minister of Justice reached in that regard. I have not one word to say in deprecation of the eulogiums which the Minister of Justice lavished upon Sir William Robson, but in so far as I understand the real character of this award, the real meaning of the award it does not justify the view that my hon. friend the Minister of Justice seems to entertain.
The Minister of Marine seems to deprecate the discussion of this award, but it was the Minister of Justice who began the discussion in this House on the 2nd of December, and because two hon. members on this side representing constituencies that are directly affected by this award put forward their views on it with great ability and fairness, the Minister of Marine thinks party politics have been introduced into the question. Well, the same hon. gentleman was not very slow to endeavour to make party capital out of the French treaty, and I should think he would be the last person to make the insinuation he has made. I congratulate the hon, member for Digby (Mr. Jameson) for bringing this question to the attention of the House. It was his clear duty to take that course. The Minister of Marine put forward some very remarkable arguments with regard to the exclusion of the Bay of Fundy from the reference, and I may say that it would appear to me that he devoted too much of his speech to advancing the favourable points in the American contention rather than the favourable points in the Canadian contention. It was not necessary that the minister should do
that because from the first to last throughout the negotiations, the preparation of the case, and the argument before the tribunal it is very apparent that the negotiators and the counsel for the United States in every single instance put forward their claims in the most extreme form, which in my opinion was not done in the same way by those representing this country. The hon. gentleman attached undue importance to the award made in 1854 for damages on account of the seizure of the ship * Washington.' If that decision has the far reaching effect attributed to it by the Minister of Marine it would have controlled not only the Bay of Fundy but every one of these bays, and yet all the other bays brought within the scope of the arbitration have been declared by the tribunal to be British territorial waters so far as the fishermen of the United States are concerned. The real explanation of the ' Washington' case was given by Mr. Dana interrupting Mr. Thompson in the argument before the fishery tribunal in Halifax, in 1877, when he said:
This subject was referred to a commission and the commission decided, not on general grounds but on the grounds that one headland was on the American territory.
This vessel was seized outside of the line which we claim to-day. If you take a very extreme limit it may be said that one headland is on the coast of Maine and the other is on the coast of Nova Scotia, but the later contention, as I understand it is, that you must draw a line between Canadian territory in Nova Scotia and Canadian territory in New Brunswick. However, I will not waste more time on that point.
The Minister of Marine derives great comfort from the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty of 1888, when dealing with the Bay of Fundy, and he says that by that treaty the Bay of Fundy was excluded and that all the other bays were dealt with along the lines of the recommendations made by the Hague Tribunal. But, the distinction is obvious beyond question. Let us grant for the sake of argument-I have not investigated the negotiations to speak definitely with regard to them-but let us grant that Mr. Chamberlain and Sir Charles Tupper agreed that in consideration of having the sovereignty of great Britain recognized in respect of all those other bays, they would not make any further claim in respect to the Bay of Fundy in which the American fishermen had been enjoying rights under the relaxation allowed by Lord Aberdeen in 1845. That simply amounts to this: That they -were getting a certain distinct, clear advantage in consideration of not depart-

ing from the relaxation of 1845, but surely the Minister of Marine knows that the Chamberlain-Bayard treaty was not the foundation of this agreement for arbitration. Can he not see the distinction between that case and this? In that case, rights which were disputed by the Americans were made absolutely secure to us and we did not press for the discontinuance of the relaxation which had already been granted in respect to the Bay of Fundy. In 1909 the situation was entirely different because then we were not securing undisputed rights in respect to all these bays. The Americans put forward their extreme contention that the three-mile limit and that only was to be recognized in respect to all these bays. Therefore, when the whole question of right was being opened up in respect to these bays that were secure to us under the treaty of 1888, why should not the question of right be opened up with respect to the Bay of Fundy? Why was it that that which the Americans had agreed to give in 1888 they were at liberty to depart from under this agreement, and that which we had agreed to give up under the treaty of 1888 we had not the right to open up, but had to let it remain secure to the United States under the provisions of this agreement. The distinction is as plain as a pikestaff; it need only be mentioned so that any one may understand it. If the two nations had taken the treaty of 1888 as a basis the Minister of Marine would have some ground for his argument, but in as much as everything the Americans were supposed to concede by the treaty of 1888 was left open under the terms of this reference there was not the slightest reason for not contending that the Bay of Fundy should also be included and our rights asserted in respect to it. What did this tribunal decide? I will first give one or two of their reasous; I quote from page 35:
The description of the coast on which the fishery is to be exercised by the inhabitants of the United States is expressed throughout the treaty of 1818 in geographical terms; not by reference to political control; the treaty describes the coast as contained between capes.
Because it is difficult to explain the words in Art. III. of the treaty under interpretation ' country . . . together with its bays, harbours and creeks ' otherwise than that all bays without distinction as to their width were, in the opinion of the negotiators, part of the territory;
Because from the information before this tribunal it is evident that the three-mile rule is not applied to bays strictly or systematically either by the United States or by any other power;
Because the practical distinction for the purpose of this fishery between coasts and bays and the exceptional conditions pertain-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
ing to the latter has been shown from the correspondence and the documents in evidence, especially the treaty of 1783, to have been in all probability in the minds of the negotiators of the treaty of 1818;
Because the tribunal is unable to understand the term ' bay ' in the renunciatory clause in other than its geographical sense, by which a bay is to be considered as an indentation of the coast, bearing ,a configuration of a particular character easy to determine specifically, but difficult to describe generally.
The negotiators of the treaty of 1818 did probably not trouble themselves with subtle theories concerning the notion 'bays'; they most probably thought that everybody would know what was a bay. In this popular sense the term must be interpreted in the treaty.
So they go on to make their award in these words:
For these reasons the tribunal decides and awards:
In case of bays [the three marine miles are to be measured from a straight line drawn across the body of water at the place where it ceases to have the configuration and characteristics of a bay ] At all other places the three marine miles are to be measured following the sinuosities of the coast.
They go on after that to make the recommendations to which my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries called attention. Those recommendations are to be distinguished altogether from the terms of the award. In this respect the award was what I have read. The boundaries referred to by the minister this afternoon are not binding on either country. They leave the matter over for further negotiations in that regard. The positive, direct, unmistakable award of the tribunal is that 'the three marine miles are to be measured by a straight line drawn across the body of water at the place where it ceases to have the con-" figuration and characteristics of a bay.'
Now, let us see whether or not the Bay of Fundy was worth including-and I would like to " make this observation just here. Neither my hon. friend the Minister of Justice nor my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries seems to claim that any attempt whatever was made to include the Bay of Fundy in the terms of this reference. I have not heard it so far throughout this debate. I waited to hear it from either of the hon. ministers. The nearest we got to it was, that the Minister of Justice said that Mr. Root seemed to take for granted from the very first that the Bay of Fundy was not to be included, and the Minister of Justice seems to have acceded to that at once. When the whole question of rights in every one of these bays was to be opened up, why should the Bay of Fundy be excluded? For the moment just let me refer to the value of the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy. From a statement made up by

my hon. friend from Digby, from returns to be found in the government blue-books, I take the following figures:	Number of
vessels and boat fishermen employed in the Bay of Fundy, 5,357-2,508 from Charlotte, New Brunswick; 574 from St. John, New Brunswick; 246 from King's, Nova Scotia; 751 from Annapolis; 1,728 from Digby. The total amount invested in these fisheries is $2,016,772; and the value of the catch in 1909 was $2,812,486. Considering the number of people employed, the amount of capital invested and the product of the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy', I think we were entitled to receive from the Minister of Justice,,or from the Minister of Marineand Fisheries an assurance that some bona fide and earnest effort was made to have this question of right respecting the Bay of Fundy determined by the Hague Tribunal. Why should it not have been determined? The Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries have given us the American contention in that regard, and have referred us over and over again to the letter written by Lord Aberdeen in 1845. I think they have been answered in that regard by hon. gentlemen who have preceded me; but let me point out this. If that was a good ground for giving up the Bay of Fundy, it might have been a good ground for giving up something else. Let us look at that for a moment. We find that the instructions issued by Mr. Mitchell, Minister of Marine and Fisheries in 1870, were first framed in this way;
Until further instructed, therefore, you will not interfere with any American fishermen, unless found within three miles of the shore, or within three miles of a line drawn across the mouth of a bay or creek which is less than ten geographical miles in width. In the case of any other bay, as the Bay of Chaleurs, for example, you will not admit any United States fishing vessel or boat, or any American fishermen, inside of a line drawn across at that part of such bay where its width does not exceed ten miles.
On June 6,	1876, Lord Grenville telegraphed to the Governor General as follows :
Her Majesty's government hopes that the United States fishermen will not be for the present prevented from fishing, except within three miles of land, or in bays which are less than six miles broad at the mouth.
The result was that the Hon. Peter Mitchell modified his instructions on the 27th of June, 1870, making the last paragraph read:
In the case of any other bay, as Bay des Chaleurs, for example, you will not interfere with any United States "fishing vessel or boat, or any American fishermen, unless they are found within three miles of the shore.
As far as I understand the practice, from that time up to the present the instructions then given by Mr. Mitchell have been followed. So that if there was good ground for giving up the Bay of Fundy by reason of Lord Aberdeen's letter of 1845, there was equally good ground for giving up the Bay of Chaleurs and every other bay, because these instructions had been definitely given at the request of the British government that American fishermen were not to be interfered with, unless found fishing within three miles of the shore. Further than that, with respect to the Bay of Fundy, and the strong view expressed as to Lord Aberdeen's language in 1845, let me refer to the position taken by Mr. Phelps in 1886.
Mr. Phelps, the American Minister at the Court of St. James that year, after stating the regret of the United States government that the Royal assent had been given to the Act of this parliament passed in the previous year, touching fishing by foreign vessels, proceeded to state as follows:
It lias been pointed out in my note to Lord Iddesleigh above mentioned that the three-mile limit referred to in this Act is claimed by the Canadian government to include considerable portions of the high seas, such as the Bay of Fundy, the Bay of Chaleurs and similar waters, by drawing the line from headlands to headlands. And that American fishermen have been excluded from those waters accordingly.
This indicates in the clearest possible way that whatever the contention of the British government was regarding the Baie des Chaleurs in 1886-7, it was asserting the same contention as respects the Bay of Fundy.
My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) asked how we could have expected the authorities of the United States to enter into any agreement regarding the Bay of Fundy when they were perfectly satisfied with the position as it was. Of course they were. They had been fishing in that bay without restriction or interference; and if they could persuade this government to be foolish enough to submit the question of right in respect to all the other bays and leave-nut the Bay of Fundy, they naturally would be extremely well satisfied. They would then have the opportunity of making good their claims in respect of all the other bays, and Great Britain would have no opportunity whatever of making good her claims in respect of the Bay of Fundy. There was no need for my hon. friends opposite to assure us that the United States authorities were perfectly satisfied to leave that matter as it was. We understand that, but the question is could the people of. Canada be perfectly satisfied

that, when this question of right was put forward, our government should have consented that the Bay of Fundy-perhaps the most important bay on the coast of Canada-should be absolutely put aside and not be submitted to this tribunal. The treaty of arbitration, under which this agreement was entered into, gave no excuse whatever for excluding the Bay of Fundy. Article 1 says:
Differences which may arise of a legal nature or relating to the interpretation of treaties existing between the two contracting parties and which it may not have been possible to settle by diplomacy, shall be referred to the permanent court of arbitration established at the Hague by the convention of the 29th July, 1899, provided nevertheless that they do not affect the vital interests, the independence, or the honour of the two contracting states, and do not concern the interest of third parties.
There you have a definite, distinct agreement to submit the differences. Was there not a difference between the government of Canada and the United States with respect to our rights in the Bay of Fundy? Was there not exactly the same difference between the government of Great Britain, as represented by the Canadian government for the time being, with respect to that bay as there was with respect to the Baie des Chaleurs? What was the difference between the two cases? Absolutely none, and the treaty called for a submission of such differences.
My hon. friends the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) did seem to rely to an undue extent on Lord Aberdeen's letter. True, the Minister of Justice said in December last that:
The result of the argument made during the present summer and the award pronounced two months ago has been to uphold to the fullest extent the British contention, and to demonstrate I think, that if the concession regarding the Bay of Fundy had not been made in 1845, that bay, as well as the other large bays of our maritime provinces, would to-day be declared British territorial waters.
I have dealt with the character of the relaxation very briefly, but I would like to read just in this connection the reasoning of the tribunal itself with regard to relaxations of a similar character. The counsel for the United States had put forward an argument based on a relaxation by Great Britain of its rights with regard to other bays, and the tribunal disregarded that claim for this reason:
Because neither should such relaxations of this claim, as are in evidence, be construed as renunciations of it; nor should omissions to enforce the claim in regard to bays as to which no controversy arose, be so construed. Such a construction by this tribunal would not only be intrinsically inequitable but in-Mr. BOKDEN (Halifax).
ternationally injurious; in that it would discourage conciliatory diplomatic transactions and encourage the assertion of extreme claims in their fullest extent;
As has been well pointed out by my hon. friends who preceded me on this side (Mr. Jameson and Mr. Maddin) the relaxation of Great Britain in that regard was_ not accepted by the United States subject to the stipulation which accompanied it. My hon. friend the Minister of Justice (Sir Allen Aylesworth) has construed that stipulation in a very different sense from that placed upon it by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries because, quoting from revised 'Hansard,' page 671, I find him using this language in referring to the opinion given by the Attorney General of Nova Scotia, the Hon. James W. Johnson:
That opinion having been pronounced by the responsible law officers of the Crown of that day, the colonists of Nova Scotia, I have no doubt, felt their case immensely strengthened, and thought they would have behind them all the prestige and power of the British government itself in defending the claim they were making to the Bay of Fundy as part of their territorial waters. But in 1845, the Lord Aberdeen of that day, then Foreign Secretary of Great Britain, wrote a letter which had been prepared as a piece of diplomatic correspondence, after the most careful and matured consideration, in which while affirming the right of the colonies, while standing upon the opinion which had been expressed by their legal advisers and by the legal advisers of the British government, none the less, on the part of His Majesty's government, as a pure matter of grace and concession, he expressed his willingness to forego, so far as the Bay of Fundy was concerned, the extreme right of the British subject in that regard, and assented to the use, by the fishermen of the United States, of the fisheries in the Bay of Fundy, in common with the inhabitants of the British colonies, upon the stipulation that as to the remainder of the maritime coasts of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec, the claims of United States fishermen should cease.
That is the plain, distinct construction placed upon that letter by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, and it is a construction entirely inconsistent with that placed upon it by my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur).
We are asked: What injury has been done by not including the Bay of Fundy? But an equally pertinent question would be:	What injury would have been done
by including it? My hon. friends the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries argued that the British case would have been greatly handicapped by the inclusion of the Bay of Fundy. As I understand it, that supposed handicap would have arisen either by reason of the shape of the bay, the different

character of the bay or by reason of the letter of Lord Aberdeen in 1845. So far as
the character of the bay is concerned, any one who examines it upon the map can see that just as powerful an argument could have been made with respect to that bay on the part of Great Britain as with respect to Placentia bay, or any of the others. And any one who examines the argument made before the tribunal and the reasons given by it will see that two great factors entered into consideration.
One was the width of the bay at the mouth, and the other the depth of the bay. Taking it from shore to shore across Grand Manan, it does not seem to be wider than Placentia bay. But the depth of the Bay of Fundy is greater. Placentia bay is only 70 miles deep until you reach the ten mile line, whereas the Bay of Fundy is at least 100 miles deep before you reach the ten mile line. Therefore, so far as the character of the Bay of Fundy is concerned, there is no reason to differentiate it from the other bays that were brought before the tribunal. We are told that it would have been a handicap had the Bay of Fundy been brought into the discussion, that the British argument would not have been so strong and cogent as it was. As a matter of fact, it was brought before the tribunal. The letter of Lord Aberdeen, written in 1845, was canvassed before the tribunal. Bates' decision was canvassed. Everything was urged by the Americans at this hearing which could possibly have been urged by them if the Bay of Fundy had been included in the arbitration. The Minister of Justice practically admits this. In one part of his speech, he says that if the Bay of Fundy had been included, some great disadvantage would have been sustained. Bat in another part of his speech he admitted that everything was brought in question with regard to that bay. At page 4707 of the Unrevised 'Hansard,' he said:
I venture to think our position was better before the tribunal without any reference to the Bay of Fundy being included in the matters for decision, the arrangement being that nothing in the proceedings should prejudice our claims with reference to the Bay of Fundy or the claims of the United States in reference to the Bay of Fundy.
Then, he says, at page 4696:
The attitude of both parties in the previous years in the course of the prolonged diplomatic discussion, while it related immediately to the Bay of Fundy, had the most important possible bearing upon the general question of the interpretation of this clause of the treaty, and just for that reason every word, I may say every letter, of that long diplomatic correspondence was scrutinized with the utmost care, was presented before the tribunal and was discussed over and over again on both sides of the question by the 149
various counsel who were concerned in the case.
So, as a matter of fact, we had all the handicap in regard to the Bay of Fundy that we could possibly have had under any circumstances, and we had not the advantage of obtaining an award with regard to that very important body of water. The injury to Canada to-day is in not having the question decided one way or the other. Hon. members opposite have. spoken of the importance of having this question settled. Well, is it settled to-day? Have they given up our rights in the Bay of Fundy? Do they stand in the position in which they seem to have stood in these negotiations, that we have absolutely relinquished all our territorial rights in the Bay of Fundy, though under the terms of the tribunal, we have absolute rights in these territorial waters? Has the government of this country given up the Bay of Fundy, with its marvellous fisheries, in which more than five thousand men are engaged, in which more than $2,000,000 of capital is invested, and whose annual production is nearly $3,000,000? Have they given up our claims with respect to that? If so, why has the claim of this country been abnegated in regard to the Bay of Fundy when it has been asserted before this tribunal in regard to other territorial waters? The injury is in not having the question of jurisdiction settled. That has two aspects. In the first place, it is in the interest of friendship between the two countries, that the question should be settled. I offered my congratulations to the government in the early days of the session, that many questions had been settled. It had not then dawned upon me that the Bay of Fundy had been excluded in the way it has been. It is in the interest of good relations between the countries that it should be settled; and I should have thought that, unless the government propose to absolutely abandon all our claims in regard to that bay, they would have persisted for that very reason even if they thought we had not a good case, upon having the Bay of Fundy included in that arbitration, in order that we might have a definite and clear decision in regard to the rights of the fishermen of both countries in these waters. What does the government propose to do about it? The Minister of Justice said, in one part of his speech, that he was glad the Bay of Fundy had not been included, and in another part, he said that wre stand in a better position in regard to it than before. If it be true, as he stated, then the tribunal has confirmed in the most complete manner and to the fullest possible extent our contention with respect to these bays, including the Bay of Fundy, what does the government propose to do about



it? Are they going to open up the matter again with the United States? Or have they estopped themselves from doing this, by neglecting to have this bay included in this reference ? I do not know the exact character of the negotiations in that regard. They have not been brought down in the form of written documents, other than the memoranda which have been read. But I do most sincerely trust that no steps taken by this government in that respect, will have precluded this country from asserting its rights, in this connection.
One other question only I would like to allude to. Having regard to the decision of this tribunal upon the second question, the position of Canada and Newfoundland acting jointly seems to me to be a very strong one. Question 2 was as follows:
Have the inhabitants of the United States, while exercising the liberties referred to in said article, a right to employ as (members of the fishing crews of their vessels persons not inhabitants of the United States?
I understand perfectly that this is a question which touches Newfoundland more than it touches Canada, but, I take it that the answer to that question, coupled with the control of the bait supply, made Great Britain-that is, Canada and Newfoundland -complete, masters of the situation. The control of the bait supply is a very important thing indeed. My hon. friend expresses surprise and disappointment because the tribunal did not proceed to deal with the reasonableness of certain regulations made by Canada and the United States.
I touched upon the main question in connection with that, and I pointed out that the tribunal made a certain disposition by which it would be determined whether any regulation was or was not reasonable. I am inclined to think if the Minister of Justice had taken the trouble to make himself a little better acquainted with the situation than he seems to have been, he might not have expressed so much surprise nor so much disappointment with the tribunal at the course it did take in that regard. I will not say anything more than that. As a matter of fact, I think that after the government had given away our case to some extent, as it seems to me they did, by the shape in which they put the question touching the reasonableness of regulation, it was exceedingly fortunate for us that the tribunal took the course it did take. As a result of that, Newfoundland has still the right to control its bait supply; and the tribunal has decided that Canada and Newfoundland have the right of control over their own citizens being employed upon United States fishing vessels. If my hon. friend the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and other members of the government will put these two things together Mr. BORDEN (Halifax). .
and see what they amount to, I think eventually they might come to the conclusion that so far as these fisheries are concerned we have the situation in our own hands, and that the fish of the maritime provinces would at no distant day have entered the markets of the United States free of duty, even if no reciprocity treaty had been made. That is the conclusion I have come to after considerable study of this award, and of what it means to the people of this country and the people of Newfoundland.
Now I am glad that these matters were submitted to this tribunal. I regret the form in which some of them were submitted. I regret that the government did not follow the example of the United States, and put its contentions in every respect at the highest point at which they could have been maintained. They failed to do that, and the result has not been helpful to the cause of Canada. However, it is a desirable thing that these disputes should be settled, I rejoice that some at least have been settled. I hope the government will take the opportunity at no distant date of announcing to the House what its policy will be with regard to the Bay of Fundy, in view of the fact that the waters of that bay are territorially the waters of Great Britain, under the reasons advanced by this tribunal, and under the award based upon those reasons.


THE TYPHOID EPIDEMIC IN OTTAWA.
Judson Burpee Black: Having failed at a previous stage of this sitting to say a few wiords on this subject, I will ask the House to listen to me now, and I do so the more readily because I seldom take up the tiine of this House. I would not have returned to the subject were it not that I consider the editorial criticism in the Ottawa ' Citizen ' of my remarks as unfair and unjust, and that I should reply to them. There seems to be a feeling in the city that nobody outside has a right to discuss this question at all. The Ottawa ' Citizen ' insinuates that I made remarks unfair to Ottawa. A gentleman speaking at a meeting on Friday evening, I think it was, and who I believe is a reporter in this House, said that I put it over Ottawa too strong. Now if my language was too strong, what must we say of the language of the gentleman who addressed a meeting n the Young Mens' Christian Association on Saturday to which I listened. My remarks were as the moonlight to the sunlight, or as water to wine compared with theirs, or as water to hot Scotch compared to what was given out there. I think that I, as well as every other member of this House of Commons, has a perfect right to take part in a discussion of the water we are compelled to drink. If it is a family

row in the city of Ottawa, I represent here a family of 225 persons who are obliged to drink the water of the Ottawa. So far as I am concerned personally, I do not drink it, and never have since I first came here. I tried it twice, and I was so sick each time that I have abstained from it ever since. I have lived in this city during the last six years as much of the time as I have lived in Nova Scotia, and I claim the right to criticise the nature of the water we are given to drink. Coming back to this editorial, the editor says that I have made an unfortunate attack, and given much publicity, ' unfair publicity,' I believe he says, to the conditions of the Ottawa water supply. Why, Sir, before I had ever said a word, the ' Citizen ' itself had been spreading the news from Vancouver to Halifax. There was hardly a paper but that has published news in regard to the typhoid epidemic at Ottawa. Then the ' Citizen,' after helping along this publicity, turns around and blames me for the few gentle remarks I made here. It says:
Dr. Black asserts that it is known where the present outbreak has originated. If it is not a matter of common knowledge, and Dr. Black is not using the city fairly by withholding such information particularly at this time. We may be getting poisoned, as Dr. Black intimates, but we can still conscientiously plead that we don't know how any more than at the beginning of the present outbreak.
Well, I regret very much the ignorance of the editor of the ' Citizen.' The report published in Toronto of the health officer who has examined the Ottawa water, says that the typhoid epidemic comes from that water. Dr. Bryce at a meeting on Friday says:
It is a water epidemic pure and simple. He placed the responsibility entirely on the water.
Dr. McCullough says :
The chief cause of the typhoid in Ottawa is the water.
Now I think these are pretty good proofs that somebody besides Dr. Black knows the location. I was going to say, when I was stopped as trespassing on the orders of the day, that there were four and possibly five modes of carrying typhoid. First, there is the water, which is the great carrier. Typhoid is a water-borne disease. Every man who has studied public health knows that typhoid is essentially a waterborne disease. Secondly, it is carried by milk, and it gets into the milk only by being carried there, by washing the milk cans or milk pitchers in polluted water that has not been boiled.
It might be introduced into the milk by a fly dropping into it and carrying the poison with it. That is No. 2, and No. 3 is, the fly 149i
which carries the bacillus from the excrement to our food dropping it into the milk pitcher, the sugar bowl, candy or anything else. The fourth is contagion where an individual comes in contact with a person affected with typhoid. Possibly the fifth and probably the fifth, is wind-carried bacilli. This can be excluded because the earth is^ covered with snow at the present time. Flies can be excluded because there are not many around Ottawa at the present time. I am afraid there are some on the man who wrote that editorial. Milk is certified in Ottawa as pure. Now, by the laws of exclusion, we come back to one cause and one only. We must take the analysis of the water, and, taking the opinion of Dr. Bryce and of Dr. McCullough-not ndJie we must come to the conclusion that the source of this disease is in the river. If it is not, in heaven's name, why is everybody crying out to have the water purified? Ottawa is trying to do the impossible. You cannot run two trains in opposite directions on one track without meeting disaster and death. You cannot soil and pollute the water of the river with the by-products of the human body and drink the same water without disaster and death. There may be let-ups, there may be periods when nobody is being killed, but every once in a while there will be an outbreak such as we have now. Let us see what is the history of Ottawa in regard to this very thing; this attempting to pollute the water and to drink it also. I have not had a great deal of time to look up the public health reports but I have looked at some of them. In 1895 there were 195 cases of typhoid in Ottawa, and in 1889-22 years agao-there were 2,000 cases. Have there been uny since those years? What has there been between those years? Here is a sentence in the official report of the medical health officer for Ottawa. He sadly says ' typhoid fever is a yearly visitor to swell our death-roll.' That is the health offcer's report. 1 think that with the statement that we have had typhoid every year and with the records of the other years, it is about time that Ottawa had decided that it is doing the impossible, that it is trying to drink water that is being polluted. It is further giving to all the communities down below the poison from here. The result is that typhoid has broken out at Rockland. I think I have shown my justification for the remarks I have made, that the poison is properly located, that the river has been polluted for years and that somebody else started the publicity before I did. I have no advice to give to Ottawa, but there are only two things for Ottawa to do-stop having this river polluted or take the water from somewhere else. London, England, has a river flowing through it but it never thinks of drinking the water. It goes away back to the principality of Wales for its.

supply. New York has the Hudson river flowing past it, but it never attempts to tap that source of supply; it goes fifty miles away for water. Vancouver does the same. Yet, we adopt the slip-shod trick of our forefathers, who took their water wherever they could get it handiest without knowledge. That has been tried by different cities all over the continent of America. The result has been thousands and thousands of cases of typhoid fever, and the cities all along the great rivers, such as the Ohio, Mississippi and the Missouri, have wakened up to the fact that it is impossible to pollute their water and drink it too. They have gone elsewhere for pure water or they have gone to enormous expense in counteracting the pollution that has been going on in the rivers.
We are not half as wise in these things as the ancients were. I might quote from Dr. Montizambert's speech on Saturday in saying that 2,500 years ago the Romans would not drink the water from the Tiber but they built that magnificent aqueduct that still has water flowing through it. Jerusalem, he also stated, went away where it could get pure water and brought it at great expense through an aqueduct. You cannot pollute the water and drink it without disaster, and Ottawa must either purify the water above the city or she must go somewhere else to get pure water. If the pollution above the town is stopped the pollution at the town must be stopped in fairness to those below. I am very sorry to have had this much to say but I thought it was only right that I should say this in justice to myself considering the way in which my remarks had been received by the ' Citizen.'


Clarence Jameson: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I think that the hon. member who has just taken his seat (Mr. Black) has been discharging a great and important public duty. I think that he deserves the gratitude, not only of the members of this House, but of the citizens of Ottawa. We are all proud of the national capital and we want it to have a good name. I do not think, however, that attempting to conceal the unfortunate conditions which exist is going to do any good. The only thing to do is to correct them if possible. To-day the typhoid outbreak has actually reached such a state that the question is asked by people throughout the whole city: Who will be next? If the discussions in the House and the discussions in the press can do anything I think that the movement which has been set on foot and which has been so much stimulated by the action of the hon. member for Hants will work for that end, and I think he deserves, as I have said before, the thanks of the House and the citizens of Ottawa for the action which he has taken in that regard.


Judson Burpee Black: 


FLYING OF FLAGS IN CANADA.
John Waterhouse Daniel: 
William Pugsley: I endeavoured to convey that the flag should be flown daily on all public buildings under the control of my department in border cities and towns, and at the principal seaports, and also, upon all public buildings on special days. I do not know that it has ever been the custom to fly a flag upon the Intercolonial Railway buildings on special days, and the Militia Department has certain rules which govern the display of flags on the buildings under its control. I issued instructions that the flag should be flown upon all the post offices and custom houses on St. David's day as well as upon other special days, and that in border cities and towns the flag should be flown every day in the year on these buildings. Some of the officials did not apparently understand the order with reference to St. David's day, which would account for the flag not being raised on the post office in St. John on that day, although it was displayed on the custom house. I have had a peremptory order sent out by the chief architect, and I do not think it will

be misunderstood in future. I was sorry that on St. David's day the flag was not hoisted on the Ottawa post office, but there was some misunderstanding on the part of the official whose duty it was to attend to the matter. As soon as my attention was called to the fact that it was not flying on the parliament building on St. David's day I gave orders which were at once attended to. I trust that in future the orders will be well understood.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am glad to hear the statement of the minister in regard to the buildings over which he has control. What is the rule in regard to the militia buildings?


Frederick William Borden: I am under the impression that the flying of the flag on forts and military buildings has some special significance. I do not think that either in England or in Canada it is customary to fly the flag from forts or military buildings as on other public buildings. However, I will get the information and let my hon. friend know at some later date.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I think the flag flies from forts every day they are occupied or garrisoned, and of course Fort Dufferin is only occasionally garrisoned. On military stores buildings and such, I should think the flag ought to be displayed as on other public buildings.


Frederick William Borden: There are certain regulations governing such matters and I do not think there is any intention of changing them.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Civil government, Department of Indian Affairs, salaries, $118,225.
Frank Oliver: There is no increase of numbers, and the increased amount of $2,825 is entirely accounted for by the statutory increases, being 12 at $100, 44 at $50, 2 at $25 and one at $12.50. The deductions for different reasons make the net increase $2,825. The number of employees is 78.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There appears to be 77, or one less, for 1911-12.


Frank Oliver: That is an error in the printed copy, due to the allowance for the private secretary having been shown in the current year as a vote for a separate official, while for 1911-12 it is properly shown as an allowance to an official.
Department of Indian Affairs, contingencies, $13,050.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: What does the item of sundries cover?


Frank Oliver: Chiefly travelling expenses.


Glenlyon Campbell: For whom?


Frank Oliver: For officials of the department, such as inspectors of timber and inspectors of agencies.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is any part of this to be charged to the travelling expenses of a man called Leach?


Frank Oliver: No, Mr. Leach is employed in the Interior Department.
Department of Interior, salaries, $919,798.77.


Frank Oliver: There is an increase of 21 clerkships over last year, of which 17 are new appointments and 4 promotions. The increases are as follows: Statutory increases, $22,825 ; 36 promotions, $9,625; readjustment of fclerkships in the second and third divisions, $2,300; 17 new appointments, $15,700; miscellaneous increases, due to changes occasioned by death, resignations, promotions, &c., $4,950; total, $55,400; decreases due to changes occasioned by deaths, resignations, promotions, &c., $14,487.50, making a net increase over last year of $40,912.50.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the reason for increasing the clerical staff?


Frank Oliver: The increased business of the department. I might read, for the information of the committee, a memorandum which was placed in my hands to-day by some of the officers of the department, as it bears on this point. First, there is a memorandum to the commissioner from the deputy commissioner, which says:
I again, desire to bring to your attention the necessity for additional assistance and accommodation for the staff of this branch of the department. The work has increased during the past ten years from 471 per cent under one heading to as high as 734 per cent under another; and there is every prospect of it becoming heavier, as settlers begin to apply for patent for the homestead and other entries made since immigration assumed its present large proportions.
It is of course impossible to provide more staff without somewhere to put them. At the present moment we are crowded to a degree which is not only embarrassing and detrimental to the work but absolutely dangerous to the health of the clerks. Our sick list during the past year has been very large, and no doubt is attributable to some degree to the lack of space and defective ventilation of the offices occupied by our staff. I attach hereto a schedule showing the increase of work, and also a description of the rooms which we occupy. You will see that the average floor space allowed to each is only 56 square feet.
The Commissioner of Dominion Lands, Mr. Greenway reported to me that he fully endorsed this statement, and that the correspondence was bound to increase very

largely when applications for patents under the new Act would come in. In 1900 the number of files handled in the Dominion hands branch, the Assistant Commissioner's branch, was 29,263, and in 1910, 227,538. In 1900 the letters were 20,869 and in 1910 167,960.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Are these applications for
homesteads?


Frank Oliver: No, they are letters with regard to homesteads. In 1900 the applications for patents were 5,601 and in 1910, 32,012. New patents recorded, 1900, 3,320; 1910, 19,352. Notifications of approval issued, in 1900, 2,746; in 1910, 19,247. The committee will thus see the enormous increase that has taken place in the past 10 years; and according to the commissioner, that increase will be much greater during the next two years, because of the very large immigration of the last two or three years, the work arising out of which has not yet reached the department.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I suppose all these new appointments are made after _examination by the Civil Service Commission.


Frank Oliver: Yes, we are asking the House to provide the money to make them, and we have no authority to make them, except through the Civil Service Commission.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the hon. minister find any difficulty in getting suitable young men to take these positions? The Postmaster General told us the other night that he had a good deal of difficulty in getting suitable men for the position of railway mail clerk.


Frank Oliver: The appointments we have received from the Civil Service Commission are, generally speaking, satisfactory, and we have no serious reason to complain.


Glenlyon Campbell: I find an allowance of 3600 for private secretary. Is that his salary?


Frank Oliver: Each department has its own private secretary, and because of the confidential position he holds, and the special work he does he receives an allowance of $600, over and above his ordinary salary.


Glenlyon Campbell: What is the salary of the man who acts in this case and who is he?


Frank Oliver: His salary is $2,300 and he gets $600 in addition, and his name is J. B. Harkin.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is he the same gentleman who appears in the different depart-Mr. OLIVER.
ments of civil government, Indian Affairs, and Interior?


Frank Oliver: The Indian Department has its own private secretary and there is another for the Interior Department, and there is an allowance in each case of $600 for the private secretary, and each department has its own private secretary.


Mr. ROCHE.: Are there .any employees who do not get the statutory increase this year?


Frank Oliver: We are asking for a statutory increase for all the employees which are not at the limit of their class.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the department make any attempt whatever, to get immigrants into the eastern part of Canada. In the maritime provinces we have been suffering from loss of population, and we want immigration there just as much as in any part of Canada. I know that some time ago complaints were made, that people could not obtain any information whatever in the immigration office in London, with regard to the advantages open to settlers in the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. There was not a paper or a word of any kind about these provinces and no inducement held out to immigrants to settle there, and there are immigrants who would prefer to settle in the east, rather than in the west. I would like the hon. minister to give us some idea as to whether he has been doing anything in that respect lately, and what he has been doing.


Frank Oliver: I am sorry that I am not in a position to give any details at the moment. I am only now asking for the votes for civil government and I have not the assistance here which would enable me to reply to my hon. friend's question. But I may say that we have been paying some attention to the maritime provinces during the past two or three years. We have two publications in regard to Nova Scotia, two in regard to Prince Edward Island, and one in regard to New Brunswick, publications that, I think, are fairly creditable, both to the Dominion and to the provinces concerned,-at least, I have never heard of any fault being found with them. I do not think we have any delegate now working in Great Britain from the province of New Brunswick. We have one from Nova Scotia and one from Prince Edward Island, and my information is that the results of their work have been reasonably satisfactory. Of course, the work is very different from that which is done for the rest of the Dominion. While there is the room for population in the maritime province, it is not the same kind of room as is available

in the pTairie provinces,-it is probably easier to attract immigrants to the prairie provinces than to the maritime provinces. But we realize the desirability of increasing the population of the maritime provinces in a desirable manner, and we are paying some degree of attention to it in the way I have stated. Of course, I can give my hon. friend more detailed information on another occasion.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it the intention of the minister to appoint one official from New Brunswick?


Frank Oliver: That is our intention. We had made arrangements for the appointment, but, if my memory serves me well, the gentleman we had chosen would not accept. We have not made arrangements for a delegate from New Brunswick yet, but our desire is to have one or more delegates from each of the maritime provinces.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When some other of the minister's estimates come up, perhaps he will be in a position to give more detailed information in regard to the efforts to obtain immigration for the maritime provinces.


Mr. WILSON (Lennox).: I understand that the province of New Brunswick have an immigration agent of their own in the old country, that province and Ontario being the only ones that have such agents. It was stated before the committee that they were working in harmony with the Dominion officials. Does the minister's department lend its assistance to these agents?


Frank Oliver: Any literature we publish is at the service of the provincial agent, and I am under the impression that the New Brunswick agent does use the literature we publish.


Uriah Wilson: Do they get any other, any financial, assistance from the department?


Frank Oliver: No.


Richard Blain: Did the minister give the names of the new officials?


Frank Oliver: No, we are asking for a vote which will enable us to appoint seventeen.


Richard Blain: Have they been selected?


Frank Oliver: No, we are not able to select them. We apply to the commission and they send us the candidates^ they approve of. Of course, we can reject these candidates after trial if we see fit. But, as I have said, we have found them generally satisfactory.


Glenlyon Campbell: It is not seventeen, as I understand it; the minister is asking salaries for twenty-one new clerks. But in the
vote for contingencies there is an item ' Clerical assistance $15,000.' Last year, this was $10,000.


Frank Oliver: The amount voted for clerical assistance under contingencies is for the employment of clerks temporarily engaged during the session or in other times of rush. This is provided for under the Civil Service Act. The seventeen clerks-


Glenlyon Campbell: Is it not twenty-one?


Frank Oliver: There are seventeen new appointments, and four promotions. Provision is made under contingencies for the appointment of extra clerks to take care of the increase of business when it is not considered desirable to make permanent increases in the staff to that extent.


Glenlyon Campbell: As I understand these appointments, four of them are creations of new clerkships to be filled by men now in the service, leaving their present positions vacant for new appointments. It means twenty-one new appointments, and four of the clerkships are to be filled by men who are now in the service.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: I assume from what the minister stated that he is in favour of the extension of the Civil Service Act. He expressed his satisfaction with the results of that Act in the inside service, and I assume that he is in favour of extending it to the outside service. May I ask what progress he has made in persuading his colleagues to adopt the provisions of the Civil Service Act in the outside service. One reason why I urge this is that there appears to be a great disparity between the salaries obtaining in the inside service and those of the outside service. I have not the figures to enable me to speak authoritatively of the salaries in the outside service, but I know from instances in my own city that they are not at all in accordance with what they are in Ottawa. In going through this list'I find there is a lot of 16 clerks who are receiving an average salary of $3,400. I question very much if that is fair; I think it is unfair relatively to the salaries obtaining particularly in the outside service in the western country. The criticism I make would apply in both ways ; first, that these salaries are too large, and secondly, that in some cases in the smaller towns they are too small. Then, going on to the next item, there are 43 clerks with an average salary of $2,500 each; next, 81 clerks with an average salary of almost $2,000'. Now, taking into consideration the very large number, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that so many high priced officials are necessary in the department. I am not criticising the staff the minister has under his control. It is

no more than justice to say, as one who has considerable to do with that staff, that I have found them exceedingly courteous and exceedingly fair. But it does appear that there is a tendency here in the city of Ottawa, in this department, and, perhaps, more so in other departments, to run the salaries beyond what would be proportionate to those obtaining throughout the length and breadth of Canada, both in the cutside service and in commercial life generally. I fancy that if the minister will look this country over, even in those parts, where living is higher than it is here, he will find that men doing the class of work that is done in his department do not receive salaries at all proportionate to these figures. It seems to me that the government has run wild, and are not considering the financial standing of the average man in Canada when they fix the salaries at such disproportionate figures. I am appealing to one of the members of the government who has had some struggles in life, perhaps, himself, the best one I can appeal to along this line, and I would ask him, first, what progress he is making in convincing his colleagues of the advisability of extending the operation of the Civil Service Act to the outside service, and, secondly, whether he does not think that, all things considered, the salaries obtaining in his department are away out of proportion, not only to those obtaining in the outside service in his own department, but to those allowed among the commercial interests of Canada to men who do the same class of work.


Frank Oliver: I regret that, as has so often happened before, it is my misfortune in life to be a disappointment to my friends. I regret to have to say that I have not exerted myself to any serious extent to secure the application of the Civil Service Act to the outside service. It has not appealed to me as likely to be a satisfactory working proposition. As to the respective salaries of the inside and outside service, I am not able from my own knowledge to make comparisons between them, or to compare them with salaries paid in other lines of life. But I would remind my hon. friend that in the Department of the Interim we are transacting the land business of, I might say, half a continent. That business is all concentrated and handled right here in Ottawa. I do not think it can be expected that business of that character and of such volume can be handled satisfactorily except by high priced men. It may be that we are paying higher salaries to some of our officials than their merits or their duties would warrant. But I will say with all candour to the committee that it is, in my poor judgment, by all odds in the best interest of Canada that where we Mr. MEIGHEN.
are handling so much and so important business we should pay salaries high enough to get men competent to handle that business. I think that is true economy and that to keep up the standard of efficiency is more important than to keep down the standard of the salaries we pay. As to salaries in the outside service, it may be that they do not compare favourably with those of the inside service in merely setting one column of figures opposite the other. I would not say that the outside service is not in many cases entitled to increase of remuneration. But there is all the difference in the world between the responsible man who is collecting the business and the man who is handling the business after it is collected. It is the difference in responsibility that is being paid for, as I understand it. I know that the salaries paid to the heads of branches here are certainly higher than the salaries paid to men on the outside, but these heads of branches have the responsibility not only for their own work, but for the work that is done by the large staff under them, and also the responsibility for the work that is done by the men in the outside service. We may be paying some of these men more than they are worth, but as an administrator of the public business I would say that the country is pursuing the line of true economy in paying sufficiently well to secure competent service.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Will the minister tell me what progress is being made towards settling the claims of applicants for homesteads in the New Westminster districts?


Frank Oliver: There are several different classes of applicants for homesteads in that district. As my hon. friend knows, the matter is one that is complicated with timber matters. He has already brought to the attention of the House one of these cases and there are others. In so far as the applications which are located within timber berths are concerned, we are not in a position to deal with them at the present time. As I have already informed my hon. friend we have had this matter under consideration for a considerable time. We find that there is a very great difference of opinion between the different interests concerned, and we have recently had representations from a deputation from one of the important interests-the lumbermen. They expressed very strong objection to the action that we had taken, and they pressed their views so strongly that we felt it was only right that we should give the matter reconsideration. Until it has become possible to give that reconsideration I cannot say how we will be able to deal with those applications.


James Davis Taylor: I would like to call the minister's attention to the serious position in which he places these settlers. Their case is a very extraordinary one because nearly all of these settlers were placed on the lands by the minister's own agent at New Westminster. They went on these lands with his full knowledge and consent, and in the cases to which I refer particularly the settlers had no reason to suppose that if they fulfilled their homestead duties they would not get their patents. I have had a ream of correspondence from these settlers, and the minister has on his files a ream of correspondence setting forth the position in Which they are placed. A sample case that I will relate to him is that of George Bell-rose which was the subject of inquiry during this session. This man went on his land in 1896, speaking from recollection. The land was open for settlement. It was not part of a timber berth, but he was told when, he made his application that there was reason to suppose that correct surveys would show that an adjoining timber berth overlapped the land upon which he desired to settle. He knew that at the time but he did not know the extbnt of the overlapping which he had reason to suppose would be very small. It has now been determined that it extends over ten acres of the 160 which he attempted to take up. As to the other 150 acres there is no obstacle whatever to giving that man his patent or dealing with him in some way. The man has built a house, has brought up a family, has made an orchard, has performed all the duties that any settler could be expected to perform, he is one of the best settlers in Chilliwack, he is one of the most respectable men there, and yet in all that time he has not been able to get a title to his land. Worse than that, recently the British Columbia Electric Railway Company had occasion to cross his land. They destroyed his improvements to a large extent, they were perfectly willing to pay for the improvements as they paid all other settlers upon whose land they entered, but they found that they could not deal with Mr. Bellrose because he had no title to the land whatever. He could not be represented, as I understand it, in any negotiations respecting the amount they were to pay for the improvements that they had destroyed, but by some process they arrived at a value of $260. That value which he had created by his labour has been taken from him. The company have paid the money into the Dominion Lands office in New Westminster or elsewhere to the credit of the government. It is not the government's money, it is Mr. Bellrose's money, but he cannot get any satisfaction as to whether or not this money will be paid to him or, if it will
be paid, when it will be paid. Worse than that still, Mr. Bellrose is in this position with scores of others that if the minister's new regulations go into effect at any time before he is dealt with he will be deprived of three-quarters of his holding and, as the minister stated in this House a short time ago, under the new regulations the minister will have no power to deal with an applicant for a patent whose application has not been finally disposed of at the time the new regulations go into effect. The minister has been a pioneer himself and he can picture to himself the position in which these scores of applicants are placed through no fault of their own. It may be that the agent at New Westminster acted beyond his authority when he allowed these men to go there. I would not like to urge that upon the minister, however, because 'I know his agent at New Westminster is a very faithful servant of the department, and has spent the greater part of a lifetime in the service. I know him to be a thoroughly conscientious man, and I am quite sure that he felt that he was doing the right thing by these settlers when he placed them in the position they are now in. I am quite sure that these men were justified in relying upon verbal promises and irregular notes which they had from this agent assuring them from time to time that they were all right find that no person could turn them off their land. If the minister desires to see some of these communications I have in my possession here quite a sufficient number of them to convince him of the nature of the correspondence passing between the agent at New Westminster, and the settlers on the lands. They run something like this. The agent would write to a man who inquired why he could not get his patent :	I
cannot give you that patent because there is a new survey being made; Mr. Sound so, of the department has been up here running lines; those lines are not yet quite completed; his report has gone to Ottawa, and since it has gone there, I have not heard .anything about it; I can assure you that just as soon as I get the lines from Ottawa I will attend to your case and we will issue your patent. In several cases, he has gone further and assured the man who was anxious about his holding: You can rely upon it that no person can come between you and your claim. I have correspondence like that in this very Bellrose case, but when they write to the department they are met with an answer to which the signature of high officials of the department is attached, telling them they are mere squatters. Man after man, whose case I have brought to the attention of the department, has received a letter from the office here, that he is a mere squatter on the land, and that the department does not recognize that he

has any claim at all. I feel quite sure that the minister has no desire to leave settlers in that position. These men have committed no offence against the Dominion of Canada when they came to the province of British Columbia in answer to the minister's invitation, published in all the newspapers, to come and get land and settle upon it. They come here and they go to the office advertised, they ask the agent where they shall go, that agent puts them on a plot of land and says in the course of time, if you stay there, I will give you your patent. They have been there as long, as 15 years in the Bellrose case, and nearly as long in other cases, and these men cannot get their patents. I appeal to the Minister of the Interior that he will give some assurance that these cases will be dealt with. I am not speaking now of men settled on timber lands, where there are large quantities of timber remaining, although I think these men should have some information as to what their rights are. But, there are a number of men settled on lands not covered by timber berths and they simply have been delayed by the unravelling of the red tape of the department, and they have nothing to blame for their lack of patents, except the dilatoriness of the department based upon reasons which I cannot fathom. I would appeal to the Minister of the Interior to make some promise that whatever rights these men have, will not be jeopardized by any new regulations, and that they will remain in their present standing. That is the point of most importance to my mind, namely, to assure these men that the minister will do the square thing by them, and that if they were entitled to 160 acres under the old regulations, they will be dealt with just as effectively for them as if these old regulations had not been altered. It seems to me that is a simple thing for the minister to do, and I believe the minister has authority to do it. If the minister would only make a statement like that, it would bring comfort to a great many deserving settlers in the New Westminster district.


Frank Oliver: It would be very unwise for me to make a general statement that might be mistranslated. I wish to deal with all these settlers on a fair basis, but of course there may be a great difference of opinion as to what a fair basis is. With regard to this particular case, that my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) mentions, I cannot understand how, if the railway company damaged Mr. Bellrose's property, the damage should be paid into the department, instead of being paid to Mr. Bellrose.


James Davis Taylor: That is where it is.


Frank Oliver: If that is where the money is now, I can assure the hon. gentleman Mr. OLIVER
that Mr. Bellrose will get it without any delay, because I think it is entirely unwarranted that the money should be paid to the department at all, it being, as my hon. friend says, Mr. Bellrose's property that was destroyed.


James Davis Taylor: Subsequent to the questions recently answered by the minister about Mr. Bellrose, I sent him a copy of these answers and he acknowledged their receipt and then mentioned to me for the first time, this $260. He said: I wish you would find out if there is any prospect of my getting the $260 that the electric railway paid into the department for the damage to my property.


Frank Oliver: I do not see that the department has any claim on the money in any way, shape or manner, and certainly if Mr. Bellrose is entitled to it, he will get it. As to going beyond that and giving a general statement that would be assumed to be a settlement of this very complicated case, I would not like to do that, and I think my hon. friend would hardly be fair in urging it too strongly.


James Davis Taylor: I ask the minister to say that these cases shall not be prejudiced by the change in the regulations, because these men have done everything in their power to have their cases settled before the regulations were changed. For instance, the present regulations were virtually suspended last July and these men have been pushing their claims actively from July to the present, which would seem to be long enough to secure settlement one way or the other, but nothing has been done.


Frank Oliver: I have only apologies to offer for the fact that these matters are not settled. I do not often apologize, but I apologize in this case. There are many divergent interests to be considered and I would not wish to be tied up to a general statement, but any specific case, I would be glad to discuss. Mr. Bellrose apparently, was a squatter before the survey, and owing to the fact that part of the land he claims, is included within the timber berth, he has not so far, obtained entry for that kind, .and. therefore, is not in a position to apply for a patent. I do not know what improvements he has, but there is no doubt that whatever improvements he has, he will certainly be maintained in these improvements. There will be no question about his right to that, whatever else there may be, I myself am a pioneer and my sympathies are entirely with the pioneers, but I have to be guided in administration by all the rights and interests that are concerned, and therefore, I do not wish to go too far in making a promise.


James Davis Taylor: Would it be too far for the minister to go, to say that these claims, whatever they are worth, would not be prejudiced by the changes made in the regulations, and that if these men had any rights before the regulations were changed, these rights would remain?


Frank Oliver: There has been no change t in the regulations. We proposed to make a change, but the change has not been made and I am not able to say just whether the change that we propose, will be made. So far as that is concerned, all the rights that were at any time-existing still exist without being affected in any way by the proposed regulations which were expected to go into effect last July, but which giever did go into effect.


James Davis Taylor: May I go further with the minister, and ask him if he will Temove the inhibition he has placed on his agent at Westminster from dealing in any way with these applications under the old regulations, because while it is technically correct that the new regulations have not gone into effect, in another sense it is not accurate to say that, because they have been advertised as something that may go into effect at any moment, and are only temporarily suspended. As I understand it, the agent has explicit instructions not to do anything at all under the old regulations. I know that is the way he understands it- whether he has got those instructions or not-because he tells every person who goes in there, that he cannot give them any information; he cannot dot an I or cross a T or do anything that may be required to perfect any case before him. That is what these men are concerned about. If they had no rights before, they would have none now. But they see it advertised that while they have settled on 160 acres, cleared, improved and fenced it, they are likely to get patents for only 40 acres. I am sure the minister does not want to bring a man to this country on the expectation of getting 160 acres, and then pay him off with 40 acres.


Mr OLIVER.: If a man has settled inside a timber berth or partly inside a timber berth, I do not know how far we would be warranted in recognizing him as a legitimate squatter. If he settled entirely outside of the timber berth. I presume we would be entitled to recognize any rights he might be presumed to have; but I do not give any assurance on that point. The assurance I . am quite willing to give is that any settler outside of a timber berth, that is a man who has not trespassed on the rights of another, will get consideration for all the improvements he has made. I may say that our agent at New Westminster, although he is an old servant of the department, and I believe with the best intentions, does not perhaps fully appreciate the intricacies of the situation, and we are at present taking measures to clean up the matter and to see that people get their rights. I do not think I would be warranted in going further than that.


James Davis Taylor: It seems to me that the minister might say that he would implement the promises of his agent at New Westminster, which is all that I am aiming to get. In a great many of these cases the settler has the specific assurance of the agent at New Westminster, the only man on whom the settlers can rely, and who, so far as they are concerned, is the government of Canada. They have letters from him assuring them that they will be all right. Now the minister says they will be all wrong, because his agent placed them on timber berths. The settlers did not know that he had no authority to do that; all they know is that they cannot get the papers until the timber lease is disposed of. They are quite content to wait a long time if they think they will eventually get their land; but when told that they will only get one-fourth, and that somebody else will get three-fourths of the land when divided, they feel that that is not a fair position to be placed in. It savours of repudiation of contracts which they have made with the government agent at New Westminster. The only fault that can be found with the agent is that he has been too long in the service. He has aged rapidly in late years, and is now very feeble, and the task of settling these cases is at present beyond him, because he is not physically fit to go out and make the inspections.


Frank Oliver: I am quite aware that the physical infirmities of the agent have been growing upon him recently, and he is not physically able to deal with these intricate and difficult questions, and we are taking measures to have them dealt with. The clerk of the department who is in charge of that work has gone to New Westminster to try to straighten them out. As to the word of the agent binding the department, the position taken by my hon. friend is to a great extent correct; bjit where the agent has seen fit to locate a settler within a timber limit, we cannot guarantee to the settler that we will step in and take from the berth holder the right for which we have taken his money. If the agent made such a promise to any settler, he stepped outside not only of his authority, but of his right, and however willing we might be, I do not think we would be able to implement a promise of that kind to the full. All I can assure my hon. friend is that we will take into consideration the promises made by our agent to the settlers, and will implement every promise so far as it seems reasonable.


Glenlyon Campbell: Is this $7,000 for sundries to be expended in sending some one out in behalf of these settlers?


Frank Oliver: No. That amount relates only to the travelling expenses, telegrams, postage stamps and other sundries required at the head office. It has nothing to do with the service in the west.
Contingencies, $67,000.


Frank Oliver: This amount is made up of clerical assistance, $15,000; printing and stationery, $45,000; sundries, $7,000. The clerical assistance is required for the service of thirty temporary clerks whom it will likely be necessary to employ during the fiscal year 1911-12. These temporary clerks, in accordance with an amendment to the Civil Service Act passed last session, can be employed for a period of six months instead of four months as heretofore. We get them from the Civil Service Commission, just as we do permanent clerks. We are asking for provision for that many, but we may not require them. If not, the money will not be used. We expect, however, a very large increase in our work during the coming year.
fflimigration, $1,066,250.


Uriah Wilson: I think it is the duty of the hon. minister to make a general statement such as the Minister of Railways gives us before his estimates are passed. This is a very large expenditure, and it is now too late to discuss it properly.


Frank Oliver: I would be very glad to make a general statement to-night but of course I have no desire to force the House to go on.


Uriah Wilson: If my hon. friend would fix a day for the discussion, that would be a considerable convenience.


Frank Oliver: Unless something unfor-seen should occur, we will say Friday next.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House.


Mr. PERLEY.: The leader of the opposition has requested me to give the following notice on his behalf: As the pending reciprocity proposals have not been carried into effect by the Congress of the United States at the session which has just terminated, he intends to move on Wednesday next for the postponement of the further consideration of these proposals in the parliament of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the House adjourned at 11.23 p.m.
Frank Oliver: Tuesday, March 7, 1911.