1911-05-05

[Stage Direction]
Mr. PATERSON moved that the House go into committee on Monday next to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Civil Service Act and the Acts in amendment thereof, and to provide as follows:
1.	As section 39, subsection 2. That a person who has served over three years as a clerk in the outside service of the Customs may be appointed to the rank of senior clerk, subject to such examination on the duties of office and other qualifications as is prescribed by the deputy head in a report to be concurred in by the head of the department. The salary of such senior clerk shall be from $1,200 to $1,600 per annum.
2.	That the part of Schedule 'B' of the Civil Service Act which relates to Customs be repealed and the following substituted therefor:

[Stage Direction]
Higher Classes
Collectors	salary per annum, from
Chief inspector	*	
"Inspectors of ports	
"	"Assistant inspectors	
"	"Chief clerks	
"	"Surveyors	Assistant surveyors (comprising tide surveyors, chief landing waiters and chief lockers)	
"	"
Technical Officers.
Dominion appraisers	salary per annum, from
Appraisers	
Assistant appraisers	
Gaugers	
Increase.
$ 300	to $4,500	Nil3,200	" 4,000	Nil2,100	" 3.200	7001,600	" 2,000	2001,200	" 2,100	1001,200	" 2,800	4001,200	" 1,600	400$2,100	to $2,600	5001,200	" 2,400	400900	" 1,600	100900	" 1,600	400
Other Classes.
Increase.
Senior clerks	salary per annum, from $1,200 to $1,600 400
Clerks and landing waiters	 "	"	400 " 1,200 Nil
Examining officers (including preventive officers whose duties are not chiefly clerical,
and lockers)	
"	"	100 " 1,000 NilPackers and messengers	
"	"	400 "	800 200
Motion agreed to.

Mr. OLIVER.: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, I wish to give my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury} the information he asked for the other day in Tegard to the request by the Royal Commission appointed1 by the Manitoba government for access to the original documents connected with the St. Peter's reserve. The fact that the time has passed when under the rules of the House a motion can be made to secure the production of these papers changes the position somewhat from w-hat it was. There is no desire to prevent the inspection of the papers by the Royal Commission, and at the same time it is desirable that the custody of the original documents should remain here or in the office in Winnipeg with respect to such documents as are there. So that if it will at all answer the purpose of the commission, they will he given, on their formal request, an order which will permit their inspection of the original documents in Winnipeg and the original documents heTe. If that will
not meet their requirements, we will try to make some other arrangement.


Mr. BRADBURY.: I would just like to point out to the minister that the object of obtaining these documents is to have them during the taking of evidence. They ought to be in Winnipeg in the custody of one of his own officers. It is impossible for the commission to establish the facts without having them there.


Frank Oliver: So that they would remain in our office in Winnipeg and in its custody, but subject to the examination of the Royal Commission. Although that has not been discussed, I think I may say that there will be no difficulty about making that arrangement.


George Henry Bradbury: Will it be necessary for me to move a resolution?


Frank Oliver: No. A formal request from the commission will, I think, be all that is necessary.


George Henry Bradbury: I think you have that formal request from the counsel. Mr. COMMONS
Whitla wrote you a letter asking for the production of these documents.


Frank Oliver: I hardly think that the form in which we received the request would be sufficient warrant for our acceding to it. I think we are entitled to the courtesy of a formal request from the commission.


George Henry Bradbury: I will see that you get that.



FEDERAL BUILDINGS IN TORONTO.

Mr.   A.@: 0. MACDONELL (South Toronto). Before the orders of the day are proceeded with, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) if it is the intention of the government to erect any general federal buildings in the city of Toronto in connection with the erection of municipal buildings there, with a view to having a large public building erected jointly by the Dominion government and the city? Mention has been made of the matter in the ' Globe ' and other papers of Toronto, and if the minister is able to make any statement upon it, I would be very glad if he would do so.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: My attention has been called by prominent citizens of Toronto, including Mr. Gourlay, the president of the Board of Trade, to the desirability of considering the question of erecting public buildings, when we do erect them, all upon one of the blocks in that part of the city known, I believe, as ' the Ward.' It is centrally situated, and it has been thought that it would be desirable to place all the public buildings in that locality, but the matter has not been considered by the government for the reason that we have not in contemplation at present the erection of any new buildings in Toronto with the exception of an examining warehouse. It may be that in connection with that building, it would be well to consider this whole subject, but so far that has not been done.


Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: I would like to inquire of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) whether he has had any further communication from Washington under the International Fisheries Treaty?


Mr. BRODEUR.: I have not got any further information on the subject. I have brought the matter, however, to the attention of His Excellency, the Hon. Mr. Bryce, who is going to take up the question with the American authorities.



SUPPLY-THE FISHERIES TREATY.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
James Davis Taylor: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, Mr. BRADBURY.
I want to submit to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) some information on the point as to which I inquired just now, and which it seems to me, should have come to his attention a long time ago through some other channel. I have here a copy of the ' Pacific Fisherman ' of March last, containing a great deal more information regarding the progress, or want of progress, of these regulations at Washington, than apparently has come to the minister. This paper reports that so far from the condition being as indicated by the hon. minister, namely, that the Senate at Washington was simply considering some unimportant changes as to the mesh allowed-so far from that being the limit of the alterations by the Senate, the American Senate on the contrary has already made the most drastic changes in the regulations submitted to that body by the joint commissioners. Let me read for the information of the House the article in the ' Pacific Fisherman.' It is as follows:
The International Fishery Treaty, as framed by David Starr-Jordan and Prof. Edward E. Prince, the two commissioners appointed by the United States and Great Britain to formulate regulations for the control of the boundary fisheries of this country and Canada, was given short shrift by the session of Congress which has just adjourned.
Tile energetic and logical protests which were made against the terms of this treaty by the fishermen of Puget Sound and Lake Erie had sufficient weight with Congress that the regulations proposed for those two districts were entirely stricken out by the Committee on Foreign Relations, to whom the Bill was referred. And even after these objectionable features were removed, the Bill, favourably reported by the committee, owing to the filibustering that was carried on in Congress during the last hours of the session, was never brought to a vote.
The Congressional Record shows that the treaty, which came before Congress in the form" of Senate Bill 6119, was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations, and that, owing to representations made to this committee, regulations 62, 63, 64 and 65, relating to Puget Sound, were entirely stricken out, as were also regulations 45 to 50 included, relating to Lake Erie. Further records state only that this Bill was 'reported with amendment,' which means that it did not come up for vote.
So far as the future of this treaty is concerned, its fate is problematical. The next Congress will be an entirely new session with many new members. The Bill, if again introduced, must necessarily go through all the routine that it has gone through in the last session. It will probably be handled by the committee in the same manner as before, and then, if Congress finds time, it may be passed. It is more than likely that the same representations made by the fishermen, even to a new committee, will have the effect of eliminating the clauses concerning Puget Sound and Lake Erie, and in this event Pa-
8431 '

cific coast fisheries will have little concern in its further history.
If this be a correct presentation of events in the American Senate-and in the absence of information to the contrary we are entitled to suppose that it is-it seems to indicate an astonishing lack of knowledge on the part of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Brodeur) of, or control over, the events relating to his department. It is no light matter that a treaty solemnly entered into between the governments of Great Britain and the United States should be implemented by Canada, as we did implement it last session, by taking authority for the minister to proclaim regulations whenever the United States was ready to proclaim them, and yet that the minister in charge of the department in Canada should remain indifferent to the fact that he is being played with by the other parties to the treaty, that not only have they committed a breach of international honour by failing during two sessions of Congress to adopt regulations which they were in honour bound to adopt, but they are guilty of a gross breach of their pledge in now undertaking to strike out important provisions in this Act.
I would recall to the minister the events connected with the long protracted negotiations of the two international commissioners. They have been referred to in this House at various times; and although we have had no formal information from the government on the subject and have had to content ourselves with such scraps as we could extract from time to time, by whatever questions we were permitted to ask, it is admitted that the making of these regulations had been a matter of mutual concession. Canada yielded on one point in order to secure an agreement by the Americans on another. It has been held up to us that one of the most valuable considerations we received for the part we allowed the American government in the control of the fisheries arrangements on the lakes, and the Atlantic, was their consent to regulate fishing on Puget Sound where, under present conditions, Canadian salmon are being wantonly destroyed. It has been held up to us by the Minister of Fisheries particularly that this wTas a most valuable concession to us, that we should overlook on that account many defects in that agreement, and that these regulations should be adopted because it was of so much value to us that we should have regulations in Puget Sound.
But we find that, after we have paid the price of adopting the regulations agreed upon in return for the American promises to regulate the Puget Sound traps, they calmly strike out their regulation of the traps and leave us in the position of having paid a price and getting no return 268
whatever for it. Similarly, no doubt, with regard to Lake Erie. I am not in a position to discuss in detail the effect of striking out these regulations with regard to Lake Erie, but there must be other members of the House who are in a position to point out to the minister wherein the united States gain the advantage by striking out these regulations. It seems to me that the minister is confronted with a most serious duty, the duty of reporting to the other parties to this agreement, that, in an affair of this kind, honour must be observed, and that the time has passed when sharp practice can be indulged in-that this Dominion is not so petty, so inferior, a state that any larges community who have a treaty with us may violate that treaty at their will. They humbug us into making conditions by ottering to give us a price, they accept the conditions and then deny us the price. That appears to be what is in progress iat Washington just now. So tar as we can ascertain our Fisheries Department has paid no attention whatever to the course of these regulations at Washington Only the other day, I inquired of the minister whether alteration was being made m the terms of the regulations. The minister answered in the most indefinite way, with no formal report, with no official statement from Washington to read to the House, and nothing to report except some trifling amendments with respect to the size of mesh of the nets to be used, l would like the minister to explain to the House how it comes that he _ is without information on these very important matters. Is it not possible tor some of his array of officials to follow the course of affairs at Washington, so that the department here and this parliament may be kept advised? Does he consider that when the negotiation is completed his duty is ended? In fact, does not he think that it is the continuing duty of the commissioner especially appointed by the government to follow this treaty through all its ramifications at Washington and to report from day to day or from week to week to the minister, so that he may know what is being done in Congress with the regulations to which he and the government have given their sanction? I would point out further the anomaly of the position in which the minister has placed himself by his course in relation to this treaty compared with the course being followed at Washington. In the Fisheries Committee of this House two years ago I asked the minister that he should have the regulations of the international commission laid before the committee, so that we might examine them, and might call representatives of the fisheries interests to perform for us service similar to the service being performed at

Washington, by the representatives ot the fisheries interests in various portions of the United States. But the minister took the extraordinary position that we were powerless in this matter, that it did not matter to us what was provided in the regulations, that our part with relation to them was merely to affix the stamp of this parliament to them so that they might become law. I brought the matter up again last session, in this House, with the same result. The minister had not learned wisdom from the example ot his contemporaries in the United States, but again told us that it was absolutely impossible that this parliament could, have any control over this matter or pronounce on the text of the regulations. As I said, wye simply gave the minister power to proclaim the regulations as they were. Nowr, it is true that the treaty itself provides that both governments shall adopt the regulations as they are presented by this international commission. It is equally true that the treaty provides that the regulations as framed should not be altered until they have first been proclaimed and we have learned by experience in what respect they should be changed. But if the United States Senate is allowed to vary the terms ot the treaty and of the signed recommendations of the commissioners, why should not the parliament of Canada nave the same privilege. Why should we always remiin in an inferior position, a position which is bound to work to our disadvantage in every arrangement we have with the united states, because we are not allowed to take the initiative in any proposition in connection with joint undertakings, but are allowed simply to scrutinize what is put forward by the United States government, put forward with their inner consciousness of the effect of their well studied propositions, communicated only to one or two officials of our government, while we in this parliament agree to take a leap in the dark, and adopt them as presented, i dissent from the minister's theory that parliament must sit here helpless and allow the interests of the country to be sacrificed to the interests of our neighbours in this connection and in many simitar arrangements that we have with the American government. i would make another appeal to the minister, because it is of the utmost importance to the salmon industry in British Columbia that we should have some form of regulations for trap fishing in Puget Bound. I would also like him to place the matter forcibly before the .British Ambassador at Washington, the official primarily responsible tor this treaty. For, as the correspondence shows he urged Ithej treaty upon this government, with rather more persistence than we snouid like Mr. TAYLOR (New Westminster).
to see, until at last he committed this government to it. If he was so insistent that we should enter into this treaty with the United States, it seems to me we have a claim upon him to be equally insistent in representing to the government of the United States that they must observe' international honour in this matter. That they must regard every undertaking of the treaty, and that if it appears to them that the treaty is so defective las to call for amendment-by the American Senate, or for direction by the Senatte to the American commissioner, the door should be left equally wide open to us, that we might consider these regulations in every detail, take advantage of our experience and have the same right to freedom to make alterations in that treaty as the Americans are assuming, i appeal to the minister whether he will not rouse himself from his lethargy in this m&tter, whether he will not become the master of this item ot his departmental work and see to it that we reassert and resume the control over our fisheries, which in my opinion, we should never have relinquished.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The subject which the hon. -member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) has brought to the attention of the House. I am glad he has given me the opportunity of making some explanations of the situation in regard to this freshwater boundaries fisheries treaty. The treaty was made nearly three years ago, and it provided for the appointment of a commission composed of one man representing the United States and one man representing Canada, Dr. David Starr Jordan was appointed on the American side, and Professor Prince was appointed by Canada. They went to work, and visited the country from one end to the other, and adopted regulations which, though not absolutely drastic, were in the right direction. We must bear in mind that it is, far more difficult for the American authorities to make concessions in the regulations than it is for Canada. The American authorities are to some extent checked by the different states. Those regulations concerning the fisheries were made formerly by the various states interested, and it was expected to be a difficult thing to get the states to agree to certain concessions in the regulations. However, regulations were passed and were accepted by the Canadian government, and also by the United States government, and then they had to be submitted to the United States Senate. It is contended in the United States that the Senate, along with the president, is part of the treaty making power, and consequently the regulations had to be submitted to the Senate. My

hon. friend says that he cannot understand why the treaty had to be submitted to the United States Senate, when it has not to be submitted to the Canadian parliament. This_ makes it necessary for me to point out to him that the cases of the two countries are absolutely different. In Great Britain, under British institutions, the treaty making power is vested in the King. The King can sign any treaty and make it valid without its being submitted to parliament, that is>. any treaty which does not affect Canadian interests.


Mr. SPKOULE.: If the Canadian parliament desired to pass upon that treaty would not that desire be granted by the British government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The rule in Great Britain, which is also recognized in Canada, is that a treaty which does not affect taxation or commercial relations has not to be submitted to the British parliament. There are treaties made frequently in Great Britain which do not affect taxation or the payment of money, and such treaties can be made by the King without its being necessary to submit them to parliament. When a treaty not affecting taxation or commercial relations is signed by the King, it becomes obligatory throughout the empire. Now the same rule applies to treaties which affect Canada. If it is a treaty which does not concern our commercial relations and which does not require the payment of any money or levy taxation upon the subject, it may be signed by the King, and it immediately becomes operative without the consent of the Canadian parliament. But with other treaties which do affect taxation, a different rule prevails. For instance, take the treaties with France in 1893 and in 1907, those were submitted to the Canadian parliament. So was the treaty with Japan, because it affected taxation. This rule is adopted according to the underlying principle of British institutions that no taxation shall be levied without the consent of parliament.
In the United States the situation is not the same. The President of the United States is not the treaty making power. He negotiates, either through his Secretary of State or by himself directly, but a treaty thus agreed upon has no effect until it is assented to by the Senate of the United States. In respect to treaties, therefore, the United States Senate fulfils the functions which are discharged by the British government. In the United States, the treaty making power being vested in the president and in the Senate conjointly, a treaty must receive the assent of the Senate before it can come into force. There have been several treaties made affecting Canada which have been assented to by the President of the United States, but which 268*
did not receive the assent of the Senate. If I remember rightly, the treaty negotiated in 1873 was accepted by the president, but was not assented to by the Senate, and, therefore, it did not come into force. The same with regard to the treaty of 1888 which was negotiated by Mr. Chamberlain and Mr. Bayard; that treaty was signed by the president. and Secretary of State, but it was not assented to by the Senate.
Now with regard to the treaty which is under consideration, it is claimed by the American authorities that the regulations, in order to have force and effect, must be submitted to the treaty making power, namely, the president and the Senate. The president has sent a message to the Senate approving of the regulations under the treaty, with the exception of one clause therein concerning Lake Huron. My hon. friend referred to Lake Erie, but I think he was mistaken. The slight change which was mentioned in the message of the president related to Lake Huron, and not to Lake Erie. It is not, however, a matter of much importance.
The Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate had this subject under consideration and they made a report, I suppose, to the United States Senate. If I am rightly informed these proceedings before the Foreign Relations Committee are generally secret, and I do not know how far the information which my hon. friend has conveyed to the House is correct. But, I think, on the whole it is substantially correct that the United States Senate-or not the United States Senate, because the Senate have not passed judgment upon it-but the Committee on Foreign Relations made a report to the Senate during the last session. As far as the government of the United States are concerned, I mav say to my hon. friend that when I was there last winter I took up the question with the representatives of the Secretary of State, and it was understood that with a little amendment which was suggested concerning the size of the mesh to be used on some part of Lake Huron, the United States government would be willing to accept these regulations. There were also some slight changes in regard to the size of the mesh used on Lake Ontario which was, I think, in the interest of our own fishermen. The United States government have, in so far as I can- see, fulfilled that part of their obligation. It is now only for the United States Senate to pass judgment upon the regulations which are before them. My hon. friend has stated that we are not doing our duty. I think his charge in that respect is absolutely unfounded. Can we interfere with the power of the United States government or the United States Senate to pass judgment upon these regulations, to approve of this treaty or not?

Can we make any remonstrance to the American authorities?


Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: I notice that by article 3 of the original treaty it is provided as follows:
The two governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislative action, with as little delay as possible, the regulations, restrictions and provisions, with ap-piopriate penalties, proposed by the commission.
y
That article has been adopted by the United States Senate and by the Dominion of Canada. Does not the minister think that when once the United States Senate has bound itself in honour to abide by the regulations which the commissioners shall make, it ends its executive duties and must, therefore, accept such regulations as were made by the commission?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The information which was given to me by the representatives of the government there, was that they maintain that the treaty-making power in the United States Senate is still in existence with regard to the consideration of these regulations, that it was part of their powers | under the constitution, and that, therefore, the United States government could not force the Senate to take any action.


William Sora Middlebro: But the treaty has been made as far as that is concerned, and one of the express terms of the treaty was that they were to abide by the express terms of the treaty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: Now, when the commissioners make regulations they are going back and altering those regulations. _ If they have a right to do. that we have a right to do the same thing.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The government of the United States have done their part, but the other branch of the treaty-making power have not seen fit to pass judgment upon the treaty or the regulations that are before them.


William Sora Middlebro: I think that my hon. friend perhaps has not grasped my meaning.' The very body that is now attempting to amend these regulations-the Senate- is the very body that said previously: We will abide by such regulations as are made by the commission. Now, when they attempt to interfere with these regulations they are going back on the treaty which they formerly made, and if they have a rigfit to say first: ' We will abide by what the commissioners do,' and then turn around and say: 'We will not abide by what they do,' this parliament has a right Mr. BRODEUR.
to do the same thing, and we should have the right now to revise these regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: These regulations are not in force yet in Canada.	.


Mr. FOSTER.: Was the treaty ratified by the United States Senate?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The first treaty, yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then they have no right in the world to change it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is claimed that they have the power to legislate in jeference, not only to the original document which was signed, but also with reference to the regulations which were to be submitted to them. That is their contention.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Did the minister understand when he asked parliament to ratify these regulations by Act of parliament?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, because we were bound by the treaty ourselves. The treaty-making power, as far as we are concerned, lies with the King. When the King signs a treaty of that kind we are bound by it, and we have no right to amend a treaty made by the King.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that perfectly. Apparently I have not made myself plain. The minister asked thi3 parliament to ratify these regulations because His Majesty had agreed by treaty to do that. That is correct, is it not?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: We simply provided by legislation for the necessary power to carry out these regulations. We did not ratify the treaty. My hon. friend will find that the legislation which was passed last year was not legislation to ratify the treaty, but it ,-was legislation providing two things: First, the necessary money to carry out the regulations, and, secondly, the necessary power for the Department of Marine and Fisheries to carry out the regulations. That is all we passed last year, so that there was no ratification by this parliament of the treaty itself because it was not necessary. The only ratification was by the King, and that treaty having been made by the King we are bound by it. My hon. friend (Mr. Middlebro) asks why, under these circumstances, should we not amend our regulations? I have explained that as far as we are concerned we have no right to amend these regulations.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to understand it. I understand that a treaty was ratified by the United States Senate and the British government on our behalf. If that is not so, it is entirely news to me. I understand the treaty has been ratified by both powers providing for the

making of regulations, and that both parties agreed to abide 'by -whatever regula-itons the commission would make.
Mr. ' BRODEUR. Precisely, and the United States government maintain that the United States Senate have the same powers to pass judgment upon these regulations as they had to pass judgment upon the first treaty that -was signed. That is the contention of the American authorities.


William Sora Middlebro: Can the minister point to any provision in the treaty which says that, notwithstanding the Senate has delegated it powers to a commission to make regulations, and has agreed to abide by the treaty and to put into operation the regulations made by the minister, it shall -also have the right to -revise its whole action and mutilate the regulations to suit itself?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not ready to pass judgment upon the United States constitution. That is a matter for them to decide and it is not a matter for us to decide. I am obliged to take the situation as it is. As far as we are concerned the situation is this: The treaty has been made by the King. It was not necessary that that treaty should be ratified by this parliament because it came into force as far as this country was concerned -willingly or unwillingly.


Mr. JAMESON.: May I ask the minister if that treaty was not made with the consent and concurrence of this government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly.


Clarence Jameson: Certainly it was.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not want to say that we are not responsible for this treaty. We are responsible for this treaty. The treaty has been made as far as we'are concerned. Now, on the other side, one of the branches of the treaty-making power does not ratify it. My hon. friend says that we should take the necessary steps to make a remonstrance. I do not think it is a case where we should interfere. Our interference, instead of doing good, might do harm. I am afraid that the reflections my hon. friend has to-day cast on the American authorities, instead of helping along this treaty will have a contrary effect.


William Sora Middlebro: If the minister said to his deputy minister:	I will abide by
what you do, and in pursuance of that the deputy does something, would the minister have the right to say later on: I shall not abide by what you have done: that is the same position.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not the same thing at all.


William Sora Middlebro: Exactly the same.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wonder how the minister can be sincere in his statement that he was glad to have an opportunity to explain the situation in respect to this matter, in view of the fact that more than once has he refused to give information on the subject when asked to do so in this House. This treaty was entered into three years ago, and time after time since he has refused to take the House into his confidence upon the plea that it would not be proper to give information until the negotiations were completed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I never refused to give any information that I had. When the regulations were passed I brought them down right away.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I have heard the minister more than once give the curt reply that he could not give that information or bring down the papers.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: All the papers are before the House.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since when?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Long ago.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I heard them refused not very long ago. We are told by the Minister of Finance that we cannot change a word in the reciprocity agreement before the House because the treaty-making power belongs to the mother country and not to us, but still we are supposed to have a say in what commercial treaties are made in our interest. Just as we are advised with regard to the reciprocity treaty so the Minister of Marine tells us that we cannot change a word or an item in these regulations, although on the other hand the United States Senate declare that they are at perfect liberty to change the treaty in any way they please. It seems to me that there is inconsistency there. If we have the right to ratify it surely we have the right to change it.
Mr. BRODEUR, The trouble is that we have not the right to ratify it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I was speaking with regard to the reciprocity pact, and it seems to me we have the right to change that, and if the United States Senate will not ratify it with the changes we have made they can do just as they like about it. I do not think that the ministers of the Crown set before parliament the clear rights which this parliament enjoys and may exercise. The fishing industry of Canada is of very great importance not only to eastern Canada and western Canada, but to central Canada as well. I represent a district that is very deeply interested in the fishing rights of the Georgian Bay, and the waters

connected therewith. There is a great value involved in our fisheries, not only on account of the money value of the fish themselves, but of the large number of people who are engaged in and connected with the industry, and who have for years been waiting for the government to do something in their behalf. The fisheries will remain a most valuable asset to Canada, and a permanent asset, if they are wisely protected and proper efforts made to replenish them. I hold, Sir, that the government is not showing the live interest in that industry which its importance deserves. The people of Canada think that the government are indifferent and dilatory in the matter and indifference and carelessness on the part of those charged with the responsibility of protecting and replenishing our fisheries will some time or other be punished by the people. We on this side of the House have endeavoured to spur the government on to activity in dealing with our fishing interests, but so far we have not been able to succeed, and the people interested are suffering because of the lethargy of the government. We have unfortunately only a joint national interest in these fisheries, and it behoves us to make the best we can of that joint interest. The ministers took this subject up many years ago, and they have been dabbling with it ever since. It is true that these international affairs move slowly, but I would like now to ask the minister if he can tell me how many years ago it is since the negotiations commenced with the United States government with a view to reaching an amicable understanding as to what should be done for the perpetuation and protection of these fisheries.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: If I remember rightly, the question was taken up by the Joint High Commission which sat in 1898 and 1899, and it has been taken up since.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That is in accord with my own imperfect remembrance, that it was taken up 11 or 12 years ago. From time to time various questions have been asked with a view of ascertaining what has been done and with a view of spurring on the government to act with greater alacrity and with a stronger desire to bring these negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion; but we are to-day in practically the same position that we were in many years ago. Our fisheries are being injured and wasted, and they are not being protected or restocked as they should be, either in Canada or the United States. One of the provisions of that treaty was that both parties to the agreement were to exercise their best endeavours to restock these waters as rapidly as possible from year to year. Has that been done? Is Mr. SPROULE.
any attention being paid to it? It is true, we have a few fish hatcheries in our country, and we are endeavouring in a halfhearted and unbusinesslike way to restock these waters; but we are not doing all that could be done. Neither of the contracting parties to that agreement is pretending to live up to it or to carry it out according to its letter and spirit. The treaty was signed in April, 1908. It is now 1911, and nothing has been done yet. That treaty provided that an International Commission should make regulations. That International Commission was appointed, and during the year succeeded in making what they thought were suitable regulations. Those regulations were made two years ago. What has been done in the meantime to carry them out? How many efforts have this government made to induce the American government to bring this matter to a finality? The Minister of Fisheries said: 'When I was in Washington last winter I spoke to them about it.' That is the only evidence we have that he showed any desire or made any effort to have the negotiations brought to such a conclusion that the regulations would be put into operation and carried out. Does that look like interest in what Canada is very much interested in? It seems to me that it does not. Then, certain regulations were to be made by the International Fisheries Commission. They were made, and were signed by David Starr Jordan for the United States and by Prof. Prince for Canada, in May, 1909. Now we are in May, 1911, and during those two years practically nothing has been done on our part. But what has been done by the United States? The Senate have taken the matter up, and in the meantime they have so mutilated and nullified these regulations that they are of little value. I take the regulation with regard to the Great Lakes, which includes the Georgian bay and that part of the country which I represent, and what do I find? I find that the Senate have either repealed or struck out the regulation prohibiting net fishing along the boundary line in Lake Erie. The regulations with regard to the construction of pound nets have also been struck out by the Senate of the United States.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I am not aware that the United States has passed legislation on the subject. Perhaps my hon. friend is better informed in that respect than I am.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The information I have is that they have nullified these regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Not the Senate.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Well, what power has the right to do it except the Senate?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: A committee has reported that to the Senate, hut the Senate, I am informed, has not taken any action.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What I am saying would apply to the committe of the Senate whose duty it is to revise these regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It would not toe fair to the United States Senate to say that they have accepted the committee's report. 1 do not think they have taken any action upon it.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The committee has taken action so far, that they have considered and have failed to agree to these regulations. Therefore, so far as our interest in them is concerned, they are practically dead to us at the present time. Trap nets were prohibited by the regulations, but that regulation is nullified. The regulation prescribing the size of the mesh of the net has been nullified or destroyed also. The regulation regarding the amount of netting that may be done is struck out as well. These regulations on every subject have been practically nullified by that committee. Now, we are told that we are in honour bound to live up to this treaty, which was made on our behalf; that as a nation we have to maintain a high national dignity and are in honour bound to observe it in every respect. But is it not strange that one of the contracting parties is bound toy it, while the other contracting party is at liberty to mutilate in any way they like, cr pay no attention to it? At the same time, we must sit here in silence, and., be told that we have not the information before us, and cannot discuss the matter in this House because the treaty has not yet been dealt with by the Senate of the United States. The information goes out to the people of the United State's, while we are denied the right to inquire into it or debate it in this House. One of the recommendations of the committee is:
It is recommended that the artificial propagation of the various food fishes in the treaty waters be continued by both countries and developed to the fullest possible extent and with the highest possible degree of efficiency. This work is regarded as of vital moment to the preservation and maintenance of the most valuable species of fishes.
Are we living up, to that? Not at all. Is the United States? Not at all. So far as I am informed, no efforts are being made by either country to live up to it. We are treating it as though it were a dead letter. It is true, it is only a recommendation; but it is a recommendation by the commission who made regulations to protect and perpetuate these fishes, and this regulation is considered by them as important for that purpose. Two years have elapsed, and nothing whatever has been done. Why has
not some effort been made on our side to enforce these regulations? Are we to allow these important and valuable fisheries to be gradually depleted, because we cannot get the Americans to act? I think we should show some determination to have these waters protected. The fisheries in Lake Erie and Georgian bay are of great interest to our people. They are of vital interest to the fishermen in that section, and these fishermen desire to get information and know exactly where they stand. Why have we not done anything? Has the minister been as zealous in looking after the interests of the people in that part of the country as he should be? I think not. The United States, he tells us, have not yet finally accepted the treaty and, therefore, we can do nothing. But what has our government done to expedite their acceptance? So far as we know, it has done nothing, and we are denied the right to get information or to detoate this question because the United States Senate has not finally dealt with it. It seems to me that we should be just as free as the United States Senate to. discuss this question, and that it is the duty of the minister to give us every item of information in his possession just as though these regulations had been ratified long ago. We are just as much entitled to that information, and to discuss the matter as we are with regard to the reciprocity pact now before this House.
This matter is in the hands of two parties and we are denied any information regarding it. What is done may be for our benefit or otherwise, but we do not know and are denied the means of finding out until such time as our hands will be tied and we shall have to abide by the agreement no matter what the consequences may be. That is how the representatives of the people are treated in this House, and the situation in which we find ourselves is a very pitiable one. We are told that we are debarred from doing anything at present by a high national code of honour, but the United States have not observed that high code of honour which is to be binding on us. If the other party is not willing to abide by it, are we bound to observe it? We are told that the regulations cannot be amended in any direction' by us, but they can be by the other side. That seems to me very unfair. Is it not about time that we brought this childish play to an end and dealt with this matter in an intelligent, businesslike and courageous way. consistent with our own dignity? The government, however, are committed to a policy of drift. They are willing to let things drift in an indifferent haphazard way from year to year until our fisneries will be destroyed. But were the government to do their duty, they would not allow a mo-

ment longer to pass without seeing that our interests were protected. Has the minister given us any evidence that he has been remonstrating with the United States or submitting to them the great desirability of bringing this thing to a finality? If he has not he should do so without any further delay. In any event he should let us know whether anything is being done. If he is unable or unwilling to do anything, then let the House take hold of the matter and discharge the important duty incumbent on it as a parliament, of looking after the interests of Canada.


George Eulas Foster: I want to get an understanding of this thing. I have been listening to the debate so far and especially to the minister's statement, and I am not quite sure whether I have the facts of the case correctly or not. Suppose we try to get the matter clearly in our minds. A treaty has been made between Great Britain and the United States. There is no doubt about that. That treaty has been ratified by the United States Senate. Am I right in that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes, the former treaty has been ratified by the United States, but not the regulations.


George Eulas Foster: I am not asking anything about the regulations. I am asking whether or not a treaty made between Great Britain and the United States has been ratified by the United States?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Then the treaty has been ratified by 'both the powers concerned. If that treaty has been ratified by the United States, and if all the forms of the American constitution have been complied with, and if all that is required by the British constitution has been met, that treaty is binding on both the United States and Great Britain and the latter acting on behalf of the Dominion of Canada, so far as these fisheries are concerned. Then all we have to do is ask what the terms of the treaty are; and if we find certain things as articles in that treaty binding and absolute, neither Great Britain nor the United States has any right to vary these. Either power has the right to ask for a revision of the treaty or, under the terms of the treaty, has the right to denounce it; but until either is done, neither Great Britain nor the United States has anything else to do than live up to the terms of the treaty. The minister will not contravene that position? He says nothing, but I know he could not. A treaty would not be worth the paper on which it is written if, after it had been solemnly agreed to and rati-Mr. SPROULE.
fied, either one or the other could do as it liked with regard to carrying it out.
I want to ask another question. Article first is as follows: [DOT]
The times, seasons and methods of fishing in the waters contiguous to the United States and Canada as specified in article i of this convention, and the nets, engines, gear, apparatus and plant which may be used therein shall be fixed and determined by uniform and common international regulations, restrictions and provisions.
Both powers agreed to that, and to that end agreed to appoint, within three months after this convention is proclaimed, a commission to be known as the International Fisheries Commission, consisting of one person named by each government. Both powers are bound by that and should live up to it.
Article 2. It shall be the duty of the International Commission

Not the duty of the United States government ; not the duty of the British^ government acting by way of the Dominion government; not that, but

-the duty of the International Fisheries Commission, within six months after being named, to prepare a system of uniform and common international regulations for the protection and preservation of the food fishes in each of the waters prescribed in article 4 of this convention, which regulations shall embrace close seasons, limitations as to the character, size and manner of use of nets, engines, gear, apparatus and other appliances; a uniform system of registering by each government in waters where requird for the more convenient regulation of commercial fishing by its own citizens or subjects within its own territorial waters or any such part of such waters; an arrangement for concurrent measures for propagation of fish, and such other provisions and measures as the commission shall deem necessary.
So, it. is not the British parliament, nor the British government, nor the American administration, nor the United States Senate,- which is to do these several things; it is the duty of the International Fisheries Commission to do them, and under the treaty nobody else can do what is laid down there to be done by that commission. Now, the International Fisheries Commission-I want to be sure I am right -has met, has agreed upon these regulations, and has reported these regulations to the two governments? I am correct in that?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Very well, they have done their duty. Now, what, does article 3 my?
Article 3. The two governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislation and executive action, with as little delay as possible-

What?
-the regulations, restrictions and provisions with appropriate penalties for all breaches thereof; and the date when they shall be put into operation shall be fixed by the concurrent proclamations of the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada in Council and of the President of the United States.
The Senate has nothing to do with regulations. The Senate, when it ratified that treaty made its last utterance on these regulations


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But-


George Eulas Foster: Wait a moment; let me finish my argument-made its last utterance on these regulations when it solemnly agreed, by the two-thirds majority necessary under their constitution, to put the matter into the hands of the International Fisheries Commission. When it did that, it divested itself of all authority in changing or making any of these regulations. They made an article of the treaty which provided how the regulations were to be brought into force. That is, the two governments were to bring them into force by proclamation-not proclamation of the Senate of the United States, or of this parliament, but proclamation of the President of the United States, and of the Governor General of the Dominion of Canada in Council.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: After the legislation being passed.


George Eulas Foster: What legislation?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is mentioned in the clause the hon. gentleman read. It required some legislation to be passed by the United States authorities.


George Eulas Foster: For what purpose?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: For this purpose: The administration of the fisheries was formerly under the control of the different states of the United States. By the treaty which was made concerning these boundary waters, these waters passed under federal control. It required, then, some legislation on the part of the federal authorities to carry out these regulations. It required also an appropriation of money.


George Eulas Foster: That does not throw any light on the subject we were discussing, nor has it anything to do with the matter. What we were discussing, and what was brought up by my hon. friend from New Westminster was that regulations provided for under the treaty, and made by the International Fisheries Commission are proposed to be changed by the United States Senate. The two governments are not to make or alter regulations, but only to put into operation the regulations made by the International Commission. It is not
to be understood or allowed that the Senate should change the regulations made by the commission. But then comes in what the minister has been talking about-that in order to have proper legislation for the enforcement, the administration is to have regard to the different states that have rights and powers in the matter, and to endeavour to get a unitv of enforcement. Does the minister contend that that provides that the Senate of the United States, the body that ratified the treaty may go back upon the regulations which were made by the International Commission and change these regulations? I do not think he can pretend that. Now, have these regulations been put in operation by concurrent proclamation, or have they not?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, they have not been.


George Eulas Foster: There is, therefore, no proclamation and consequently up to this time, the regulations made by the International Fisheries Commission are a dead letter. That is where the matter stands?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Yes.


George Eulas Foster: Now, what seems to me the unwarranted thing-and I say that with all due respect-is that a committee of the Senate of the United States, evidently with the idea of bringing up the regulations before the Senate for amendment after proposing changes in these regulations themselves. That is quite open to the Senate, and this treaty is torn into ribbons. There is here a provision by which a revision of these shall be made, if they are not satisfactory. Article 5 says:
The International Fisheries Commission shall continue in existence so long as this convention shall be in force, and each government shall have the power to fill, and shall fill from time to time, any vacancy which may occur in its representation on the commission. Each government shall pay its own commissioner, and any joint expenses shall he paid by the two governments in equal moieties.
The next section deals with a change of opinion which might occur with either of the parties:
The regulations, restrictions and provisions provided for in this convention

Namely, those made by the International Fisheries Commission, not by the Senate, not by the Dominion of Canada, but by the International Fisheries Commission.
-shall remain in force for a period of four years from the date of their executive promulgation-
So that after the executives promulgate ' these, there is no power to destroy this convention, and those regulations remain for a period of four years.

-and thereafter until one year from the date when either the government of Great Britain or of the United States shall give notice to the other of its desire for their revision.
, There is where you have a chance for revision. After these remain in power for four years, if one power says, ' we do not like them, notice is given, and they may be revised, and then the Senate may have something to say about it.' Either one of the contracting parties may refuse to abide by such regulations, and in such a case the treaty will become of no effect. '


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The hon. gentleman says the matter could be referred to the Senate. I call his attention to the fact that this particular clause simply speaks of * the governments.' I would not like to admit just now that the United States Senate would have the right even to revise, because the treaty simply speaks of ' the governments.'


George Eulas Foster: And thereafter until one year from the date when either the government of Great Britain or of the United States shall give notice to the other of its desire for their revision-
Then revision can commence.
-and immediately upon such notice being given the commission shall proceed to make a revision thereof.
Not the Senate. My hon. friend is quite right. The Senate even then has no power to revise.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It would be a question whether, in such a case, the Senate would have the right. It has been contended by the American authorities, and it has been so stated to me by them, that in every case under these different sections where the action of the government is involved or required, this action is to be exercised, not by the government alone, as we understand it here, by the president and his cabinet, but with the concurrence of the United States Senate. That is their contention.


George Eulas Foster: Even suppose that contention is correct


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not say it is correct, but that is their contention.
Mr. FOSTER-the time has not arrived for that, and will not until four years after the promulgation.
Immediately upon such notice being given, the commission shall proceed to make a revision thereof, which revised regulations, if adopted and promulgated by the Governor General of Canada in Council and by the President of the United States, shall remain in force for another period of four years and thereafter until one year from the date when Mr. FOSTER.
a further notice of revision is given as above provided in this article.
' If there be a revision by that International Fisheries Commission, which revision, if agreed to by the two executives, must then be promulgated, the Senate may then put in a claim that they are to advise the president as to whether he shall agree, and they may exercise their right in that advice. But until four years after the promulgation of this set of regulations which has been made by the International Fisheries Commission, the Senate does not seem to me to have lost power under this treaty to alter, change or interfere in any way with those regulations.
It shall, however, be in the power of the two governments, by joint or concurrent action upon the recommendation of the commission to make modifications at any time in the regulations.
To make modifications at any time in the regulations. That they can not do on their own initiative, it must be on the recommendation of the commission alone. So it seems to me that under the present condition of things the minister's stand is not a clear one. He has failed to inform us that he has taken objection to the contention of the United States authorities.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I may say to my hon. friend that when this matter was brought to the attention of Mr. Bryce and myself, who were there together, we understood that in speaking of ' government,' the word meant what we understand it to mean here. But we were informed by the counsel of the Secretary of State, that in such a question it would require not only the action of the government, but the action of the Senate, because the Senate was a part of the treaty-making power.


George Eulas Foster: That is in case of revision. But there is no chance for revision until four years shall have passed.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But then action can only be taken after the proclamation, according to section 3.


George Eulas Foster: Well, I have given the articles in the treaty, and they are as plain as words can be, and it seems to me they leave us in an unsatisfactory position. Of course, the minister may say that these regulations have not yet gone into effect on either side, and consequently they are not operative. But the sole reason of the treaty was to get at an understanding, and to provide a machinery which would protect the fisheries, and keep that inestimable resource of both countries in good condition, and prevent depletion of what is so great a source of food for the people of both countries. My hon. friend from Grey stated that here you have three full years

after the treaty has been made, and you have not yet had the official proclamation of these regulations


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is not our fault. .
Mr. FOSTER-and as a consequence of that, you have a hesitation and loss in the fisheries.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say one or two words. Let me state at the outset that 1 would not presume lor a moment to interpret tne constitution ot tne United States contrary to the views of those who make it their study. What I say, therefore, must be taken subject to the consideration that tne constitutional lawyers of the United States must be presumed to understand their own constitution, and that -what we say in regard to it is only our own understanding ot tne meaning of the language. It seems to me that when the United States Senate ratified this treaty, then the treaty became just as binding upon the United States as it was binding upon Canada by tne ratinca-tion of His Majesty the King. I would ' have thought that, under the circumstances, the regulations themselves would not become subject to the ratification of the Senate except in so far as the treaty lt-self plainly stated that such ratification was to take place. For example, it might be that at the end of the four year period such ratification for a further period might be necessary under the terms of the treaty. What did the treaty amount to? It simply amounted to this, that the government of Canada, through His Majesty the King, and the government of the United States' entered into a treaty by which they agreed that these regulations should be according to the arbitrament and decision of the tribunal which the treaty appointed. That is the meaning ot the treaty it it means anything. After these regulations have been made by the duly constituted tribunal it is said that the Senate of the United States claims the right under its treatymaking powers to revise them. I do not know whether 1 am correct in that. The Senate of the United States might interfere in two ways. It might interfere, as one of the legislative bodies of the United States, by declining to pass legislation enforcing these regulations unless some amendment were made in the regulations themselves. It would possess that power, and it could exercise that power, although such exercise would not be in accordance with the terms of the treaty, just the same as this parliament might decline to implement the treaty that had been made. That is one thing, but that is not what I understand is being done at the present time. The Senate of the United States is not interfering in that way, but it is interfering
under that clause of the constitution which vests in the Senate a portion of the treatymaking power of the United States. _ It does not seem to me conceivable, subject to the superior wisdom of the constitutional lawyers of the United States, that that particular thing would be possible. Let me illustrate. Suppose the Unitei States and Great Britain entered into a treaty by which they referred claims by the United States against Great Britain, or by Great Britain against the United States, to the arbitrament and determination of a particular tribunal. Such a treaty would not be binding upon the united States until it had been ratitlei by the Senate in accordance with the provisions of their constitution, but after it had been once ratified, it would be thoroughly binding upon the United States, and it would be imposible for the Senate of the United States, after the award had been made by the tribunal to which these claims had been referred, to say: We have now the right, under the treaty-making powers of the constitution, to vary and alter that award. If it could not do that, and it is plain to me that it could not, in the case of the arbitration by which 1 have illustrated my argument, then it seems to me equally impossible that it should do so in the case which the minister has brought to the attention of the House to-day. I would like to ask, in conclusion, from the minister, whether it is by virtue of the ordinary legislative power of the Senate, or whether it is by virtue of the treaty-making power of the Senate, that these regulations are now alleged to he subject to modification?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That is the point upon which I have no definite information, but I assume, by reason of the message which was sent to' the Senate, that it is being dealt with under the treaty-making power. I am under the impression that that is the way in which it is being dealt with, because the matter has been referred to a committee on foreign relations, and I would, therefore, be inclined to think that the Senate has been acting in its capacity as a part of the treaty-making power. But, as I have said, I have no definite information on that point.


George Eulas Foster: Has the minister the resolution which was introduced in the Senate?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I think we have. I think it was sent to the department by the British ambassador. I may inform the House that this morning I discussed this question with Mr. Bryce myself.


Clarence Jameson: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been discussed in this House on more than one occasion, and I think its importance is sufficient warrant for the discussion which has heretofore taken place. The


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That question was not considered at all at the time.


Clarence Jameson: Then I may gather from that, that the minister is as _ much surprised at the action of the United States Senate in that connection as are other members of this House. I assume that if the minister had known that the United States Senate were going to revise the action of the commissioners, he would have imparted that information to the House two years ago, when this matter was discussed; and the very fact that it was not understood is an evidence of the other undoubted fact, that all our dealings with the United States are entered into without a full and complete knowledge of where they

are going to land us. I think in matters of such vital importance as this-important to the fisheries and important to the people interested in the fisheries-there should be no room for misunderstanding; and that when this country agrees to a treaty entered into by Great Britain on our behalf with the United States, it should be with a knowledge of where that treaty is going to lead us, where it is going to leave us, and what we are going to get under it.
Now, so far as we are concerned, these regulations, I presume, cannot be reviewed. I will ask the. minister, however, whether or not, in view of the situation which has unexpectedly developed in the United States, we can give to our commissioner, or, if not, to his department, or, if not to his department, then has this parliament, the right also to make changes and alterations in these regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: There is no doubt that under the treaty the regulations might be revised with the consent of this government and the treaty-making power of the United States.


Clarence Jameson: Then may I ask the minister if he is giving consent to the alterations which are being imposed by the United States Senate?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly not. I may say, however, with regard to one of the changes, concerning part of Lake Huron which is a result of a difference in the size of the mesh, I stated to the American authorities that we would have no objection to have an amendment made; but it was of no importance.


Clarence Jameson: Then we reach this conclusion, that while we on this side of the herder can only make changes in these regulations with the consent of the United States Senate, they on the other side of the border can mutilate or alter them in any -way they choose without obtaining the consent either of the government of Canada or of this parliament.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But the amendment could not be put in force except with the consent of the Canadian government.


Clarence Jameson: I can quite understand that, but in this case they are not proposing to add to, but are striking out.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The same thing.


Clarence Jameson: Not exactly the same thing. Consequently we would have a skeletonized form of these regulations, none of the remaining regulations, perhaps, being objectionable to us, and yet the form and substance of them, necessary in order that the fisheries should be conserved, being stricken out. So that I do not suppose that


Clarence Jameson: the minister will say at this moment that if these changes, which have been recommended by a Committee of the United States Senate, are made by the Senate, he will take the responsibility of refusing to pioclaim the regulations in force in this country. Perhaps the minister may have reached that conclusion, and, if so, will state it.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, I have not considered that point at all.


Clarence Jameson: That certainly indicates a very unfortunate position for Canada, for Canadian fishermen, and for the people of this country generally. Can the minister state at this time in what stage the regulations are in the United States Senate, or whether they have yet been submitted to the new Senate?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether they have been submitted this session or not. I do not think they have.


Clarence Jameson: I gather from what the minister says that the government on this side of the line have practicaly decided to abandon the regulations, as they do not seem to be in touch with the United States Senate. When the regulations come back here, they may be in such a skeletonized ferm that they will be simply worthless, as I think they are now. Consequently the advantages which we had hoped at one time we would get under properly-framed regulations, will be lost to the people of this country and to our fisheries. In my view, there is in this matter a question of international faith at stake. I believe that we should adopt a firmer policy in our dealings with the United States. I do not think we should consent to have them trifling with the administration of this country. It seems to me that they consider the government of Canada to be a pretty easy mark, from the manner in which they have been conducting themselves with respect to these regulations; and almost every other case in which we have had dealings with them of late, has indicated a similar disposition on their part and a similar state of mind on the part of the government of that country. In the meantime, the question is, how are we going to protect and conserve the fisheries which were to be protected under these regulations? It seems to me that the whole thing has so far fallen to the ground. It is a most regrettable thing that matters should have reached the stage at which they are.
I trust that the government will take the very earliest opportunity to see that whatever is going to. toe done under this treaty, in connection with these regulations, is done, and is reported promptly to this parliament, and that any rights wjiich

we may have under that treaty are preserved to the people of this country.


William Sora Middlebro: I would like to ask the minister whether or not legislative action is required for the purpose of putting into operation these regulations? If so, whether or not the ratification by the United States Senate can be considered as legislative action on the part of the United States or whether ratification is required by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Article 3 of the treaty reads:
The two governments engage to put into operation and to enforce by legislation and executive action the regulations.
The United States Senate have passed an Act (ratifying the regulations subject to these changes they are making. I desire to know whether or not that is legislative action as required by the treaty.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: I do not know whether the United States Senate, in considering these regulations, has acted by virtue of its jurisdiction as a branch of the treatymaking power.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the hon. minister know whether the House of Representatives has sanctioned the regulations.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No, it has not.


William Sora Middlebro: This article says that the regulations require to be sanctioned by legislative action, and 1 would assume that means legislation "by both Houses. It is the intention that these regulations, after going through the Senate, shall go to the House of Representatives for legislative sanction?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: The official information that I have is that a message was to be sent by the President of the United States recommending the necessary legislation and the adoption of regulations. I have no other information on the subject.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the minister know whether or not the British House of Commons has taken legislative action?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: No legislative action was required on the part of the British authorities because the matter concerned Canada alone. It was contemplated in the treaty that the legislation mentioned in article 3 should be passed by the Dominion parliament, and that has been done.


William Sora Middlebro: So far as Canada is concerned, evidently we are absolutely bound by the regulations passed by the joint commissioners and the United States are not.


Mr.   BROEITR@: Nobody is bound to-day, because no final action has been taken and no proclamation has been issued.


William Sora Middlebro: Suppose Congress should pass the regulations mutilated as they are, would we be bound by them?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: Certainly not. It would be for us to consider whether those amendments should be accepted or not.


William Sora Middlebro: Who would have the power to alter the regulation's-the commission or this government?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: It is provided in the treaty that the regulations may be revised by the two governments on the recommendation of the commission. It would be for this government to decide whether there was such a recommendation on the part of the commissioners.


William Sora Middlebro: The hon. minister knows that such recommendation can only be made after four years. I think it is time this House should protest against being placed in the unfair position in which we aTe. That position seems to be that while the United States agreed to abide by whatever regulations might be made by this commission, and while we agreed to be 'similarly bound, yet the United States Senate is now mutilating these regulations to suit itself. Both countries having delegated their powers to that commission to make those regulations, all that remained to be done was to ratify them and neither country had any power to amend,_yet we find the United States Senate amending the regulations to suit themselves. I want to protest against another thing in connection with this treaty, and that is this. Apparently the United States make public the contents of the treaties long before we have any information here as to what is contained in them. In the present instance these regulations made by the Joint Commission, as the Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows, were published and sent broadcast throughout the United States long before we in Canada knew anything about them. I had a copy of the regulations from an outside source long before I could procure them from this government. Then take the other case, that of the International Commission which it is proposed to establish and place in charge of railway rates, express rates, telephone rates and telegraph Tates. Down to this day, we have no information from the government regarding the contents of the report on this subject. I asked for that information three months ago, but so far we have neyer had any information of what that report contained. The matter is a very important one, the establishment of an International Commission to regulate international railway rates, express, telephone and telegraph rates. Yet although we have no information from this government and none can

be obtained from it, there appeared three months ago in the American ' Review of Reviews ' a full exposition of the contents of that report. The ' Review of Reviews ' went on to state this:
It is expected that with the reciprocity treaty there will also he submitted to Congress the text of some sort of traffic agreement with Canada to regulate the railroad business over the border. . . . The report of Chairman Knapp, concurred in by Chairman Ma-bee, and presented to the Secretary of State on the last day of December, contains recommendations of such importance to those of our citizens who are interested in trade and travel across the border that we herewith summarize its most important points.
The writer of that article, as far back as last February, went on to summarize and give details of the contents of that report which our Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) said the other evening had not been divulged and that he was not at liberty to say anything about it. Notwithstanding the statement, this report was published last February in the ' Review of Reviews.' The article goes on to say:
The proposed treaty provides for a tribunal to enforce and administer its provisions to be known as the International Commerce Commission, and which shall consist of four members, namely, the chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission and the chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada for the time being, a member of the Interstate Commerce Commission to be appointed by the President of the United (States, and a member of the Railway Commissioners of Canada to be appointed by the Governor General of Canada in Council. The powers conferred upon and the authority given to this commission in respect of international carriers would correspond to those exercised by the Interstate Commerce Commission in respect of interstate carriers within the United States.
The provisions of such a treaty should apply to telegraph, telephone and express companies and such companies should be subject as respect to international business to the authority of the International Commerce Commission.
Then it goes on to give other particulars. What I want to emphasize more particularly is this, that while we on this side are prepared to preserve secrecy regarding *state documents, commissions or agreements, on the other side they are made public at once: and in that way they get an advantage over us with respect to treaties of that kind.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: With regard to the regulations which have been passed, I am not aware that the American authorities published them in advance.


William Sora Middlebro: I myself saw a copy of these proposed regulations. It came into Mr. MIDDLEBRO.
my possession from a fisherman in my locality who got it from an American fisherman. That was the first intimation I had of what' these regulations were.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: That must be a mistake. I may state what actually occurred in that connection. Professor Starr Jordan sent a draft prepared by himself to be considered by the different states interested. This draft, for reasons unknown, was published by the Ontario government as an official document, but it did not contain the official regulations which were adopted later on, as absolutely different ones were adopted.


William Sora Middlebro: They were draft regulations, and the copy I had was marked confidential, yet it was being circulated throughout the United States. My hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) says they were published in the press of the state of Washington.


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: But they are not the regulations adopted later on by the commission. It was merely a draft which was sent out by Dr. Starr Jordan, but which was not accepted by the commission.


William Sora Middlebro: That is exactly what we complain of. The draft of the regulations was sent all through the United States to receive the approval or disapproval of their fishermen, before we had the draft here, or an opportunity to consult our fishermen or to receive the advice of our own commissioner.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: If I understand the matter, my hon. friend finds fault with us because the results of the negotiations that we had with our American neighbours were disclosed by the American authorities and were not disclosed by us. That is the point the hon. gentleman makes against us. Let me tell my hon. friend that the American system is to divulge everything in matters of diplomacy even before they have got through, while the British system is to disclose nothing until the agreement has been put through, and the thing has become official by the signature of the parties. My hon. friend apparently, has a weakness for the American system:	If I understand aright, he
would change the British for the American system. But we do not want to do that, either on this occasion or on any other. We are not in favour of annexation; we want to remain British. I think my hon. friend ought not to try to induce us to go out of our way to favour the adoption of American methods.


William Sora Middlebro: We do not want reciprocity in that kind of conduct. But if it is the custom of the American government to disclose these documents contrary to the

British system, it is the duty of our government to get the information from the United States as quickiy as possible after they publish it so that we may be in as good a position as they are in that regard. These regulations, I understand, weTe a compromise. The commissioners of the two countries sat down together and eventually agreed upon a certain set of regulations. Now, the compromise is being taken up by the United States Senate, and they are proceeding to amend it to suit themselves, as I contend, in direct contradiction of the terms of the treaty.


George Eulas Foster: I do not know that the information has been given to the House, but as I have not the information, I would like to ask a question either of the Prime Minister or of the Minister of Railways. What authority was ever given to Chairman Mabee that led to his conference with Mr. Knapp? Was it a mere conference of gpod neighbourhood, or was there official direction and instruction?


Wilfrid Laurier: I cannot say at the moment, but my impression is that it was a purely friendly conference to ascertain whether the two countries could agree on a common system of that kind.


George Eulas Foster: And not authorized by the government?


Wilfrid Laurier: I could not say positively, for I do not remember-at-the moment, but I could ascertain.


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

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals-Collection of Revenue -Intercolonial Railway-Further amount required, $353,000.
['The contention of the hon. minister in this respect is not in accordance with the clear terms of the constitution.\nThe order for private Bills having expired, the House resumed in Committee of Supply.']
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM (Minister of Railways).: This is for the adjustment of accounts, and does not provide for further expenditure except as it takes from the revenue of last year a certain amount which we wish to pay for rolling stock and other items. When the estimate for the current expenditure of the year on the Intercolonial railway was made up, it was on information available last autumn. In the supplementary estimates an amount was voted of $250,000 to add to that. As I said to the committee at the time, I was asking to be allowed to pay out of revenue a further sum of $200,000 for rolling stock. I thought J had got an estimate in the supplementaries, but evidently I had not. Then, there was $76,000 to pay out of revenue for the estimated value of the property lost by the fire at Campbellton. That was a new departure; we were taking it out of revenue.
But evidently I did not get the vote for it. Further there was $58,000 increase of wages under the schedule, and this was unforeseen to a certain extent, at least at the close of the year we did not have the amount in our minds. Then there is a small balance to make up the $350,000. The only effect is that it will reduce the amount that would appear as surplus revenue of last yeaT.


Mr. BARKER.: Do I understand that no part of this vote will, under any circumstances, go to capital account?


George Perry Graham: None of it.


Samuel Barker: It is probably a reduction of what seems to be your profits on operation?


George Perry Graham: Yes, it reduces our surplus.


Mr. EDWARDS.: Are the locomotives bought for the Intercolonial railway always bought by tender?


George Perry Graham: Always.


Mr. CROCKET.: Do I understand that part of this is to be applied to the purchase of rolling stock to replace what was destroyed at Campbellton?


George Perry Graham: No, but $76,000 is the estimated value of the buildings destroyed at Campbellton, and we are taking that amount out of revenue this year to apply toward the new .buildings.-


Oswald Smith Crocket: Was no rolling stock destroyed in Campbellton?


George Perry Graham: Yes, but it will be replaced out of revenue.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the value of rolling stock destroyed there?


George Perry Graham: I have not the figures before me, but I placed them on ' Hansard ' at the time I put through my Supply.
Allowances-Active militia, $110,000.


Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia and Defence).: I have distributed for the information of the committee a memorandum which gives a pretty full explanation of the different items making up these main estimates. Perhaps it would be well for me to say a few words generally before proceeding to the items, and in doing so I will detain the committee but a few minutes. It is well known that in June last Canada was visited by one of the principal military authorities in the British Empire, Sir John French, the Inspector General of the British forces, who came here in accordance with an arrangement, I might say an understanding, made as long ago as 1902, when the Canadian



8515
ministers were in England attending the Colonial Conference, as it was then called. They sent a memorandum to the Colonial Secretary indicating the course which Canada was prepared to take with reference to matters of defence, and pointing out that so far as military defence was concerned, we would be glad to have the benefit from time to time of an inspection of the Canadian forces by a distinguished British general. This is the first opportunity since that time that we have had the advantage of such an inspection.
Now, I am not going fully into the report of Sir John French, as no doubt questions will be asked as the different items are under consideration. But on the fourteenth page of the memorandum which has been laid before the members, special reference is made to recommendations of Sir John French, the Inspector General of the British forces, and I wish to confine my observations at the moment to the two points especially referred to in the memorandum. First, the question of organization, secondly, the training and education of the officers and the force generally. I may perhaps observe that Sir Jphn French, being Inspector General of the forces of the empire, and being a soldier and a great general, naturally looks at all troops which he inspects from the point of view of efficiency as an armed force ready for active service. That was his point of view, and natural!'* perhaps, he was to some extent disappointed, or at any Tate would be disappointed, with the Canadian militia as a force of that kind. We in Canada know perfectly well that the Canadian militia has never been a force ready to go to war, that has not been the principal idea in its organization. In fact it is only within a very short time, three or four years, that any such idea would have been suggested in connection with the militia. The purpose of the militia has been to aid, to assist, the British army when difficulties occurred in Canada. The British authorities have always maintained in Canada British forces in different portions of the country up to a very short time ago. In 1905 the last of the British troops were withdrawn from this country, from Halifax and Esquimalt, and Canada then assumed the direct responsibility for the defence of her own territory, thereby relieving the British taxpayer from responsibility in that connection. Previous to that time, while a British force was maintained in CAnada. the Canadian government did not pretend to keep up many of the administrative branches of an army. There was always at Halifax or at Esquimalt the nucleus of an army which could supply, when required, the necessary administrative branches After the troops were with-Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
drawn from Halifax_ and Esquimalt, or about that time, it became necessary for the Canadian militia to organize the different administrative services, and that has been done, so that to-day in that respect, and in every respect, to some extent at least, we have in Canada a force able to take the field if necessary.
I was saying that Sir John French would naturally be disappointed if he expected to find a force absolutely ready to take the field for active service. We did not expect that, he probably did not expect it. But he was asked to make a frank criticism and report of what he found, and of the remedilesi which he woujd suggest, and that I am happy to say he has done. I may say that his report is very satisfactory indeed to the military men of Canada. General Lake, who was here at the time, felt quite satisfied with Sir John French's criticisms. One of the recommendations, or one of the criticisms perhaps I had better say, which Sir John French made, was that our organization was not what it ought to be, that is to say, he found that our peace organization was not such as would lend itself to the best efficiency if the force were ever required to take the field. If we are maintaining a military force at all it must be with a view of having it prepared in the event-much as we would regret it and unlikely as it may be -of war, but still a force which would be fit to take the field if required. The objection which he has made was that the different branches of the force were scattered, that there was not a proper balance in the strength of the different branches as between infantry, artillery, and cavalry, and he recommended that instead of the large commands and the districts which we have had for many years-long before I came into office-we should have divisions established, and that each division should contain within itself all the branches including infantry, cavalry, artillery and the administrative services of the army sufficient to defend completely the particular portion of the country included in the division. This proposal, fortunately, can be carried out without any serious difficulty and I will read here the words of the memorandum which are, as a matter of fact, the words of the present general who succeeded Sir Percy Lake-Major General Mackenzie.
This reorganization can he effected with, practically no dislocation of the existing system, as each divisional command will include one or more of the present military districts. The result of this change will be to place1 under each divisional commander the troops to form the division he would command on mobilization and tend to associate, during training, the units which would work together as a division in the field.

I do not know that I need enlarge at all upon that.


George Eulas Foster: How many districts are there now?


Frederick William Borden: Thirteen. But I may say by way of explanation that Oeneral French has separated eastern Canada from what he calls western Canada, m his report.


George Eulas Foster: What is the line of division?


Frederick William Borden: It is the
lakes. He proposes to 'leave western Canada under the districts as they are at present. The particular organization of which I am now speaking refers exclusively to eastern Canada, that is Ontario, or most of it, Quebec and the maritime provinces.


Mr. DANIEL.: How many divisional commands are there?


Frederick William Borden: There will be six divisions in eastern Canada. At the present time there are ten districts so that it really means a diminution in the number.
Mr- DANIEL. Will the minister give the boundaries of the different divisional commands of eastern Canada while he is on the subject?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. There will be three divisions in Ontario. One of these divisions will include two military districts. The province of Quebec is also divided into two divisions in place of the three districts which now separate the different parts of the province. The maritime provinces will be one division. As a matter of fact at the present time they are put under one larger command, but they are divided, and have been for many years into three districts.


John Waterhouse Daniel: In the divisional Command are all the officers who administer that division in the time of peace assembled at headquarters, or are there some remaining as they have been in different places, say in Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Frederick William Borden: No, a'll the staff officers are at the head of the division.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They will all be removed to Halifax then?


Frederick William Borden: Yes. The other strong point which Sir John French made was that the training, or the education, both at the schools and in the camps, was not up to date, and he made some suggestions with regard to these matters, which will be carried into effect and which,
I think, are very desirable. As a result of his criticisms, I am glad to say, that 269}
Major General Mackenzie is giving special attention to this matter. He proposes to take pains to see that officers from the permanent force shall be sent to the different parts of the country where they may be required in order to give the officers of the active militia an opportunity of learning their duties, so that they will be able to take their positions in the different units, regiments, &c., throughout the country, with advantage to themselves and to the militia generally.


George Eulas Foster: What form will that instruction take?


Frederick William Borden: It is being carried out now, and we hope that during the present financial year it will be in full operation.


George Eulas Foster: The officers of the permanent force are held at the disposal of the department to do this work?


Frederick William Borden: Yes,


George Eulas Foster: In what way do they do it? Do they hold schools or do they drill individually, or do they teach?


Frederick William Borden: There are two or three ways. One plan is that the officers of different regiments throughout the country belonging to the active militia shall go to the schools to live in barracks, and pass through the necessary course of study. Another plan is to send men from the permanent force to the officers because the best of our officers perhaps are those who are men actively engaged in civil life, and cannot afford to leave for four or six weeks, or even three weeks It always has been to some extent done, but it is proposed to do it more than ever; that competent teachers shall be sent from the permanent force to teach the officers at their own homes and, of course, in camp.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is that the improved method of training and education recommended by Sir John French?


Frederick William Borden: His reference there means up-to-date methods. For instance, Sir John French objected that, the old-time method of marching past and presenting arms and all that sort of thing was a waste of time, and that instead of that the men in the different regiments .should be taught the newer system/ of manoeuvres on a larger scale, conditions having entirely changed.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: Will there be no marching past in future?


Frederick William Borden: Not very much. The public are very much interested in the marching past, and they like to SDend a day in camp and see it, and it

will be continued for one day or so in the year, but to nothing like the extent it used to be.
At six o'clock, House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill (No. 170), to incorporate the New Ontario and Quebec Railway Company.-Mr. Gordon (Nipis-sing).
On section 1,
Mr. LANCASTER.: This Bill raises the very-much discussed question of provincial rights, but it goes a good deal further, in the sense of having much less excuse for being brought into this parliament, than any other Bill that I have seen here, with the exception, perhaps, of one or two waterpower Bills which have been much discussed. The purpose of the Bill is to incorporate a company professedly to build a railway from just outside the limits of the province of Ontario, in the province of Quebec at Lake Abitibi, across the northern part of Ontario for about 160 miles, traversing that part of northern Ontario which is being developed in the matter of railways by the government of Ontario at great expense to the people of the province, and by a policy which is just in its infancy, but in which a large amount of the assets of the province is involved. This professed main line, if it can be called such, does not traverse any part of the province of Quebec, and is practically of no use to that province. It is apparently put into the province of Quebec just as an excuse for this company coming to this parliament to get a charter. Then it proceeds 160 miles into that part of northern *Ontario which is being developed at great expense to the people of Ontario by the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario railway, which is a people's railway, projected for and by the people for that purpose. The object of this company is manifest, I think, from the fact that it asks authority to build two little branch lines, one running northeast and southwest, and the other north and south, right in the territory traversed by the Timiskaming and Northern, each of these lines being only 25 miles in length. Evidently that is the whole purpose of this railway company. If a charter should be granted for these two little lines, it should be got from the Ontario legislature. Under subsection 10 of section 92 Sir FREDERICK BORDEN.
of the British North America Act provincial legislatures have full power in regard to the following matters:
Local works and undertakings, other than such as are of the following classes:
(a.) Lines of steam or other ships, railways, canals, telegraphs and other works and undertakings connecting the province with any other or others of the provinces, or extending beyond the limits of the province.
(b.) Lines of steamships between the province and any British or foreign country.
(c.) -Such works as, although wholly situate within the province, are before or after their execution declared by the parliament of Canada to be for the general advantage of Canada or for the advantage of two or more of the provinces.
Unless some of these conditions exist, the province has full power to incorporate a company for building these railways. A representative of the Ontario government appeared before the Railway Committee when this Bill was under consideration there, and stated that the Ontario government objected to this road being built, believing that it was not bona fide in regard to the so-called main line of 160 miles, and they asked for some guarantee that that line was going to be built. No guarantee was forthcoming other than the statement that the company intended to build it. It struck me that there was a guarantee that could be given, and I have therefore, given notice of an amendment which I will move if the committee thinks the Bill should pass at all. In these matters it is surely up to us to find out what the bona fides of a railway company are. We are surely not going to give a company a charter to build a railway through one province just from the threshold of another, if they _ do not intend to build it, but if they are simply using it as an excuse for getting a charter to build a provincial road. If this company, under the pretense of building an interprovincial railway, while intending to build only two little bits of railway wholly in the province of Ontario, secure a charter from this parliament, and then never build the road which alone gives them a right to come here, they would in that way perpetrate what is virtually a fraud both on this parliament and on the provincial legislature. If the House is with me in that view, it will not pass this Bill. But if it does not go with me that far, then when we come to section 7 I will move my amendment, which is to the effect that the company shall not be allowed to build these little roads unless they first build the so-called main line. If they are not going to build that Toad, they should not have the charter from this parliament. If they are going bona fide to build it, they should not object to my amendment.

On section 7,


Samuel Barker: I should like to hear the hon. gentleman who is in charge of this Bill make some answer to the remarks that have just been made by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster). We have here a main line which may be of very considerable importance, and we have two short lines which can be of no use, I think, to this Dominion, so far as public service is concerned, unless the main line is built. I would like to know why there should not be a provision here that they might make the two short lines or branches after they have completed the main line. We ought to have some explanation of that.


Mr. GORDON (Nipissing).: The member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster), was speaking when I came in, and I inferred from his remarks that his principal trouble was that he is afraid that the people who are at the back of this railway are not going to build it. Now, if they are going to build the main line and also these branches, *1 presume he would have no objection. He stated, I think, that the Ontario government required some kind of a guarantee that these people would go on and build this road. I would like to know what kind of a guarantee they should give other than asking for this charter. These people intend to build both the main line and the branches, and I think it is better to allow them to build either their branches or the main line, whichever they choose to build first, whichever will be most advantageous to themselves. I think if the member for Lincoln knew as well as I do how badly railroads are needed in that country, and what a great advantage they would be, instead of opposing a Bill like this, he would do everything he could to further it. I may say for his information, as well as for the information of the House, that the country up there is a great agricultural country, and unless it is developed by railroads it will remain as it always has been, of no use to any person. I think this is a very important road, and should be built. I have heard no good reason given why the branch lines should not be included, and certainly I have heard from the hon. member for Lincoln no good reasons for objecting to this Bill.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I thought I had made it quite clear that I was contending for a different thing entirely from what the hon. gentleman has spoken of. I did not contend that this road should not be built, I only said that I wanted to be sure that this was not a trick played upon us by pretending to build a main line which they did not intend to build, and building the
branches first and stopping there. I did not say the road was not needed, I do not want to retard railway development. But I want to make sure that this whole road is going to be built, and I want the big part of the road to be built first before the branches are built, because the branches, if built alone, are purely provincial matters and are to connect with a purely provincial railway. This Bill provides that the road is to be built from a point on the National Transcontinental railway in the province of Quebec, and then southerly around the east end of upper Lake Abitibi, which is in the province of Ontario, a total distance of 160 miles, and all in the province of Ontario except two or three miles. '
If the promoters are sincere and intend building the whole of the railway, they will show their sincerity toy accepting the amendment I am about to propose. I am heartily anxious to help them to build the whole of the road but do not want them never to touch the main line of 160 miles, which might be of some use to the Dominion as a Dominion road, and content themselves with building these two little branch lines of 25 miles each. The most vicious interference with provincial rights would be to incorporate a little railway 25 miles long, purely provincial, to connect with another provincial railway, a railway provincially owned, and in no sense under the control of this parliament. If the company want a charter for those two branch lines, they can get it from the Ontario legislature. Surely we are not doing a wise thing in incorporating against the protest of the province of Ontario, two little bits of provincial railway of 25 miles each to connect with a provincially owned and controlled railway. I beg therefore to move the following amendment to be inserted as section 2:
2. The powers of construction granted by paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section shall not be exercised until the line of railway authorized by paragraph (a) shall have been constructed to the respective junctions on that line to which the lines authorized by said paragraphs (b) and (c) are to extend-


Mr. NESBITT.: The same argument which my hon. friend has used now was used in the Railway Committee, and the committee' decided that as this was a peculiar section of country, and very probably the road would be built largely in the mining interests, we should give the company a charter. This is a peculiar section of the country,, and it is very probable that these branch lines may require to be built first to accommodate people settling there. Therefore, the Railway Committee saw fit to give-the charter to build the branch lines first-


Samuel Barker: There are two arguments of which I am growing tired. One is that we have done a thing before, and therefore must do it again. The other is that a thing has been done in a committee, and therefore must be adopted in this House. In the committee we are told that a thing has been done before, and that is given as an excuse why we should do it again,-no question *whether it is right or wrong, but only that it was done before-


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, I did not say that it should be done because it had been done before.
.Mr. BARKER. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesibitt) said that it 'had been done in committee and therefore we should do it here.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is what I said.


Samuel Barker: The argument is precisely the same. Now, we have here a system of responsible government. It is useless for the _ ministers to profess that they are responsible only for government measures. Everybody knows that the ministry is responsible for the legislation of this House. Session after session we are deliberately violating the constitution of Canada, and the government know it. It is not done in so many words, but it is done. What would be said if I introduced a Bill in this House to construct a railway from Labrador to the western coast ot British Columbia, with power at any or every point along that distance to construct twenty-five mile branches? Would not the allegation that such a thing was reasonable be something such as you would address to the occupants of a madhouse? But what worse would that be than what we have here? The gentleman asks a charter to run a line from one province to another, with two branches. And he objects-and it is important for members of the House to consider whether this shows good faith or bad faith-he objects to a clause being put in that he shall not make the branches until he has made the main line. What can more clearly show that this is an attempt to evade the constitution ? Why the veriest simpleton in the country will understand that 'he wants the right to build the branches, and that is all he cares about. We have the Minister of Railways (Mr. Graham) here. I believe that he_ is trying to improve the railway law of this Dominion, and I think he has already done a great deal to improve that law. I ask him, what does he think of this deliberate, this evidently wilful and intentional attempt to break through the constitution? I have no interest in this matter. and do not know anybody connected with the company. But I appeal to the
Mr. NESBITT
House to consider whether the man who promotes this Bill and professes to want to build a line from a point in Quebec to a point in Ontario with two branch lines, and says he must construct the branch lines first, is not deliberately trying to evade the provisions of the constitution. Are we in this House not to use common sense? Why do they try to evade the provisions of the constitution under which we live? I do not care a snap of my finger about the individual interest. The gentleman who is promoting this Bill is a friend of mine, and sits on our own side of the House. But I do not think that is a reason why I should act and vote contrary to the law of the land as I am asked to do. Why should not he put in a provision that if these parties want to build a branch line, they must make it a branch to an existing railway-that is they must build the trunk first, and then the branch?


George Gordon: I think it is a disgrace to the intelligence of this House for any member to talk in that way about something that, as I believe, he does not know much about. Suppose the Transcontinental railway were completed from the junction to mileage 940, and not completed to mileage 1,000. And suppose one of these lines starts from one mileage, and the other from the other mileage, would there be common sense in the builders of the roads hauling stuff 60 miles by team to commence the building of another road? Is it not common sense to begin building a road from a point at which you have railway communication?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Gordon, Nipissing) wants an answer, this is the answer:	There is a
good deal less sense in parliament deliberately granting a charter under pretense of it being a Dominion railway, for two 25 mile roads that are entirely in Ontario. The hon. gentleman has not yet learned that the province of Ontario has power to incorporate railway companies. He proceeds entirely on the argument that if you do not hold a Dominion charter you have to haul stuff by horses. He does not know that Ontario has power to build railways, to build auy railway entirely within the limits of the province and neither does he know that if the railway is entirely within the limits of the province this parliament has no jurisdiction to incorporate it at all. The hon. gentleman had better ask leave to withdraw this Bill, communicate with the promoters, and suggest that they take the Bill before the provincial authorities. As my hon. friend from Hamilton (Mr. Barker) says, it makes no difference whether this road is five or 125 miles long, if it is entirely within the province. The hon. gentleman promoting this Bill argues

that he must have the right to build these two little branch lines-he calls them branch lines although I believe they constitute the only road that will ever be built -that he must be allowed to build a road 25 miles long, but he does not realize that if they are in the province of Ontario not only is the province of Ontario the power to iauthorize their building, but this parliament has no power to authorize them to do anything. I repeat my hon. friend can do everything that- he wants to do, without horses, without an automobile, without carts, under a provincial railway charter, and if my hon. friend knows that, probably he will see the necessity of accepting the suggestion, or else going to the province of Ontario, and getting his charter to build this line in all 50 miles long, which is entirey within the province of Ontario.


An hon. MEMBER.: Carried.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think we should have some idea from the minister how he views this matter. This may have to be a precedent. The House will have to decide upon this on the third reading. We cannot allow it to go through in a casual way, the House will have to take the responsibility ultimately, and if four other hon. gentlemen will stand up with me on the third reading we will divide upon it. I think the minister ought to say what the policy of the government is with reference to railways of this kind.


George Perry Graham: I am interested in this discussion, because this is the first I have heard of this Bill. I confess I do not know much about it, because I was not in the committee. I hardly understand that it is divided into a main and two. branch lines; it is Tather divided into three sections. As a matter of practical railway construction I could understand a situation where it would be wise and, from a practical construction point of view, absolutely necessary to build the branch first.


Samuel Barker: Is>
there any pretense of that here?


George Perry Graham: I do not know; I am trying to get information. The Timiskam-ing and Northern Ontario railway is not a branch of the Grand Trunk Pacific, but it will serve my illustration very well. It would have been very difficult on one section of the construction of the Grand Trunk Pacific to get supplies in if we had not had the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway to take them up. That branch, it we might call the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario a branch for the moment, was constructed before the Grand Trunk Pacific. If it had all been under one charter I imagine the construction company would have built that branch before attempting to construct the main line, in
order to carry in its supplies. I could understand a situation where the cost of a railway could be materially reduced by building a branch line first in order to get the supplies, in. I do not know whether that is the situation in this case or not.
I am afraid that I am somewhat of a sinner-if sinner it can be called-in leaning to the view that it is better in the interests of the people and in the interests of transportation to have as many railways as possible under federal jurisdiction. I have had some experience during the last year. We have some railways under provincial	jurisdiction-I
am not speaking particularly of the province of Ontario now-to which the federal parliament has given _ aid. There is one case I have in my mind where a railway became so badly out of repair that it could not be operated and operations ceased. The rails were actually taken up, and there seemed to be no power on earth to stop the taking up and carting away of these rails by the owner of the road, although this parliament had given possibly $6,000 a mile towards the construction of the road. I am_ introducing legislation now with the object of effecting a remedy in such cases, but I found, in endeavouring to draw a clause, that we have no power within this parliament to deal with any road except those operating under a charter granted by the federal authority, or which has passed into the hands of a company that derives its power from the federal authority. That is one reason why I am very anxious to have all the railways possible brought under federal jurisdiction if it can he done without straining the constitution to the breaking point.


Samuel Barker: Why to the breaking point?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Where is the breaking point?


George Perry Graham: I believe the constitution was devised for the good of the people.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: As the fellow says, ' which people,' the provincial people or the Dominion people?


George Perry Graham: All the people. I think that the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada is the best machinery to be found in the world for the control of railways. I do not think it has an equal anywhere, and I think I am serving the interest of the people if I can get as many railways as possible under that jurisdiction. Take this railway, for instance, I see the view point of my hon. friend, and I do not like to think that we are being deceived in granting a charter for some line that there is no intention of constructing, but that the charter is merely to be used for the

construction of two small lines. It is not in my recollection that we have ever challenged the bona tides of a company when it places a plan before us which shows an interprovincial line, or when it gives good reasons why the line should come under federal jurisdiction. The hon. member for Hamilton (Mr. Barker), says that the application for the charter is fraudulent. I would not like to go that far. Perhaps I am too kind hearted, but I always give a fellow the benefit of the doubt, till I prove that he is wrong.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It does not look it if he does not accept my amendment.


George Perry Graham: That may be the judgment of some, but perhaps the promoter says that he proposes to build the whole of the line covered by his charter, but it may be more convenient perhaps for financial reasons, or in connection with construction to build one of the proposed branch lines first, in order to facilitate the construction of the main line. The Bill can not get through to-night, and I will have an opportunity to look into it. I do not know anything about it, I was not at the committee, and I always hesitated to go against the finding of a committee particularly when I was not there and when I am not in as good a position to express an opinion as those who were present.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The attendance at the committee was small, the yeas and nays were not taken but the majority was very close for carrying the Bill and rejecting the amendment.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: My memory is that there were only one or two against it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is neither polite nor fair for t'he hon. member to say that. I moved the amendemnt and half a dozen spoke in favour of it, and they certainly would have voted as they spoke, but as no vote was taken we cannot prove to a demonstration what the vote was. My hon. friend is entirely w^rong in saying' there were only one or two against it.


Samuel Barker: Surely the Minister of Railways is not to set up his individual opinion against the clear terms of the British North America Act. If a railway asks a charter from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and wanted 25 miles in every province over that distance, surely the hon. gentleman would not force on parliament his individual opinion that the federal authority should take everything it could under its jurisdiction.


George Perry Graham: If my hon. friend's illustration were carried out he would get into a position where he would have no jurisdiction constitutionally or in any other Mr. GRAHAM.
way. As the Dominion we have jurisdiction in every province.


Samuel Barker: The contention of the hon. minister in this respect is not in accordance with the clear terms of the constitution.
The order for private Bills having expired, the House resumed in Committee of Supply.



['Quite satisfied.\t-\nSome resolutions reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fisher. House adjourned at 9.33 p.m.', 'Monday, May 8, 1911.']
Frederick William Borden: I wish to make one or two more observations to conclude my general remarks with reference to the reorganization under Sir John French's scheme. This reorganization will not result in any considerable increase in the votes of money required; in fact, it will not result in any increase whatever. During the three years past and the present year the estimates show practically no increase whatever. It is proposed to carry out the general scheme of reorganization without materially increasing the vote. For the past six or seven years we have had an annual vote of about $1,300,000 for the purpose of purchasing equipment of various kinds, including artillery, saddlery, rifles, &c., and it is proposed under this scheme of Sir John French to go on at precisely the same rate. We will increase the artillery and cavalry-the only two branches of the service to be increased- precisely as we are able to purchase the necessary equipment with the annual vote of $1,300,000. That is the only other general observation I have to make with regard to the proposed reorganization.


Samuel Barker: A great many people in Ontario have been anxious to know how far the report of Sir John French went. Was it with regard to a general reorganization or with regard to the personnel of the militia. Did he express any opinion as tc, the rank and file, as to the regimental officers, and as to the higher staff?


Frederick William Borden: Sir John French spoke very highly of the rank and file; he spoke very highly of the officers; he spoke particularly well of the artillery; he was not so well pleased with the cavalry or with the infantry. But, on the whole, I think it is fair to say that he considered, in view of the short time of the annual drill, that the Canadian militia made a very good showing, and that with some changes which he suggested-some of which we can carry out, and some of which we will not be able to carry out-an effective force may be hoped for within a reasonable time.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the 3rd New Brunswick Regiment of Artillery drill this year?


Frederick William Borden: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There must be some misunderstanding about that.


Frederick William Borden: It was to have been disbanded, but I understand it is to be reorganized before the annual camp this year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is to be reorganized?


Frederick William Borden: The battery to which my hon. friend refers.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They do not require any reorganization. I do not suppose there is a corps in the whole Dominion of Canada that is in better condition and has had better report for efficiency than the 3rd Regiment of Artillery. It has had a high record for years, and why this corps should have been dropped from the list of those to be drilled this year, I do not understand. Evidently the commanding officer has come to the conclusion, I presume with some good reason, that his corps was not to be drilled this year, and I shall read the order he issued.
3rd 'New Brunswick' Regiment, Canadian Artillery- Regimental orders by Lieut.-Col. John B. M. Baxter, commanding.
St. John, N.B., May 4, 1911.
1.	In view of the fact that this regiment has not yet been ordered to perform annual training this year it is desirable that its organization should be preserved intact and that all ranks should endeavour, by the exercise of voluntary spirit, to maintain the corps in the state of efficiency which has been its pride for years.
2.	The .first battery of artillery in St. John was founded 118 years ago to-day. Since that time the artillery organization in this city and province has been continuous, and since 1860 there has not been a year when the regiment has not been on parade.
3.	Under these circumstances the O.C. the regiment desires that all ranks shall join in performing voluntary drill during the coming season, paying particular attention to infantry drill and ceremonial, as the regiment will probably have several opportunities of appearing in public. It is to be distinctly understood that no one has authority to promise that any pay will be granted for the services so performed.
4.	Roll books of attendance will be kept posted as usual. Recruits who are willing to serve on these terms will be accepted. 0. C.'s batteries will make the usual arrangements for drill nights and other details.
5.	The N.C.O.'s and men are particularly reminded that they are not in any way released from their obligation to serve in the militia by reason of the corps not being ordered to perform annual training. Any who may wish to join or serve in any other corps may apply for discharge in the usual way.
6.	All ranks are specially reminded that it is not consistent with discipline in any way to criticise the action of their military superiors.
7.	The officers of the regiment will attend a special service at St. Paul's church on the
day of His Majesty's coronation. The hour, to be named afterwards, will be as nearly as possible that of the ceremony in Westminster Abbey. Full dress will be worn.
By order.
Major, Adj., 3rd Regt. C.A.
The name of the adjutant is not given here. It is quite evident from that order, issued by the commanding officer of this corps, that he must have had reason for believing that his corps was not going to perform annual drill this year. I do not know when the orders for annual drill are issued, but I presume that it has been customary to issue them previous to the present date. Of course, if the minister states that the corps is to drill, this adjutant must be labouring under a considerable misapprehension, and I would be glad to hear from the minister that the corps will be on the roster for drill as it always has been. While on my feet I would like to remind the minister that this corps is one of 1 think only three in the whole Dominion of Canada which, while it has been thoroughly efficient for years, a corps in which I take a great interest myself, having belonged to it for over twenty years, and one which I think stands as well on the records made by the inspectors who have inspected the various regiments as any corps in the Dominion, appears to be picked out in some way, so that it has not even one representative officer, non-commissioned officer or man-on the contingent which is to be taken to the coronation. I think there is good reason to ask the minister why this corps should not be granted the same privilege, if it is to be called such, that is given to every other corps, I believe, in the Dominion. If my memory serves me, the minister stated in his place in this House that there would be one representative of every corps in the Dominion in that coronation contingent. This corps, although it was asked to name one from each battery, named the men, but none has been chosen.


Frederick William Borden: The com mittee will of course understand that it is impossible for me to keep in touch with the doings of each one of the 150 or 200 corps throughout the Dominion. I know Colonel Baxter, who is one of the most enthusiastic and keenest officers in Canada, and is a personal friend of my own. I am rather surprised, if matters are in the melancholy condition in which my hon. friend from St. John paints them, that Colonel Baxter had not intimated the fact to me, because he has not hesitated in the past, when he thought things were not being done as they ought to be done, to ask my direct intervention, and I have had the very great pleasure on more than one occasion of giving it. I did not know until

my hon. friend mentioned the fact that there was any difficulty of any kind with the 3rd Battery in so far as the coronation contingent is concerned. I shall be greatly surprised if it turns out that this regiment was not asked to send men. There were no non-commissioned officers invited to be sent; but men were to be chosen from every corps according to a certain rule laid down, and from those men, when they assemble at Quebec, non-commissioned officers will be selected. I will look into that matter at once. The selection of officers is an entirely different matter. We have about 40 officers to select from the active militia of Canada out of over 3.000 and from between 100 and 200 different corps, so that it is absolutely out of the question that we should select an officer from every corps or from perhaps one in ten.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister mistakes me if he thinks I made any such suggestion.


Frederick William Borden: I understood my hon. friend to say that this is one of the few corps which have been slighted in the selection of officers.


John Waterhouse Daniel: As far as having any representative either officer, non-commissioned officer or man.


Frederick William Borden: As to the men; I agree that the matter must be investigated, but as to officers not at all. The province of New Brunswick has the very great honour of supplying the commandant of the coronation contingent. When I made up an estimate of the number of officers which should be sent from each province, it was then decided that the number from New Brunswick would be two. Colonel Maclean was selected as commandant, and Captain MacKee of the New Brunswick artillery was selected.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What for?


Frederick William Borden: The Moncton battery.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How long has that been m existence?


Frederick William Borden: I do not know. He was selected because he had distinguished himself in South Africa, and wore the South African medal. He was selected by General Drury, who commands the maritime provinces.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What will the minister do with regard to having a representative from that corps on the contingent?


Frederick William Borden: Is my hon. friend sure that the colonel of that regiment was not asked to select men for the coronation contingent?


Frederick William Borden: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: I have my information direct from the colonel himself.


Frederick William Borden: That he was not asked to do it?


John Waterhouse Daniel: That he was asked to name three men, one from each battery, and that he did so, but that not one of them was selected. He felt, and the whole corps feel, that they have been slighted. I believe I am correct in saying that the minister declared it was the intention that each corps should have a representative, in which case this corps is an exception, and some explanation is due.


Frederick William Borden: It is not an exception, and my hon. friend has admitted that the colonel was asked to make a selection. If he did not make any, that was his fault.


Mr. McLEAN (Sunbury).: My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Daniel) is under some misapprehension. I was told this evening by Colonel Baxter that he had been asked by the department to select men to go on the contingent, but that not seeing his regiment's name in the general order, he thought that had been cancelled. I asked him why he did not bring the matter to the attention of the department, and he said that he intended to do that today. but was not able to see the proper officer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I am not labouring under any misapprehension at all, though my hon. friend may be. I am simply repeating the statement that the colonel made to me. If he has found out something else since, I did not know it. He told me that no man had been selected from his corps to go on the contingent.


Hugh Havelock McLean: Although he had sent in the names?


John Waterhouse Daniel: He named one from each of the three batteries, and those names were sent in. But not one of them was selected.


Hugh Havelock McLean: No notices have been sent out to the men who have been selected from the different corps, but I understand they will be sent out in a day or two.


John Waterhouse Daniel: If one of those men be selected, that will be satisfactory.


Frederick William Borden: I have no doubt but that the three men have been selected, and are going on the contingent.


Samuel Barker: There are some others of us who may have some little discussion with the minister on this subject, and perhaps we might take up this item and resume the discussion on some other item.


Frederick William Borden: There will be a special item brought down on Monday to provide the necessary money t# take the contingent to England, and that will be a very convenient time to discuss the coronation contingent generally.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What about the annual drill?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: That will come up more appropriately on resolution 81.


Mr. PERLEY:: The minister has made
a general statement, and there is a good deal of matter which we want to discuss in a general way.


Frederick William Borden: I would suggest that we might pass a few items and allow any discussion concerning them on any other item. There is one item, that of the annual drill, which I want carried, as we cannot have our annual drill without it, and that drill will be coming on in a very few days.


George Halsey Perley: We have no desire to make any obstruction to the providing of money for the annual drill of our militia. If the minister will undertake that any question regarding annual drill may be asked on any other item that will be satisfactory, and when we next go into committee we may discuss the general question and the minister's statement.


Frederick William Borden: I would like item 80 passed as well, because that involves payment to officers in the active militia and is connected with the annual drill.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is there any increase in these allowances this year?


Frederick William Borden: I think not. There is a decrease of $15,000.


Mr. MADDIN.: I would like to ask the hon. minister what considerations prompted him in making appointments to the coronation contingent from the 78th regiment in Pictou? And why Captain J. W. Macdonald, 78th regiment. I would like to know what prompted the minister to appoint this young man, who has not yet attained his majority, and was only appointed last fall to a commission.


Frederick William Borden: The young gentleman served in camp last year, he had passed all his military examinations, and is well reported upon by his senior officer. And, so far as I know, he is an admirable representative of the 78th regiment. He certainly has the right name to entitled him to represent a highland regiment.


James William Maddin: I would inquire further if, when this matter comes up on Monday,
we may discuss this aspect of the matter- a general discussion?


Frederick William Borden: General discussion, of course.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Shall item 80 carry?


John Waterhouse Daniel: On that consideration. It is with great regret that I came downstairs to-night. I think that, under all the circumstances we might not have met at all this evening, considering that half the House, or nearly half-and the better half I may say-are employed so very pleasantly elsewhere. But I think we will give the minister all his annual drill vote if he will close up shop.


Frederick William Borden: Quite satisfied.	-
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of Mr. Fisher. House adjourned at 9.33 p.m.

Monday, May 8, 1911.