Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question with reference to the proposed Long Sault dam, and before doing so it is necessary that I should read a letter that I have received from Washington. The letter is as follows:
Dear Dr. Reid,-I am taking the liberty of writing you at length, advising you of the position I hhve taken in opposing the ' Long Sault Development Companies Bill,* now pending in both Houses here.
An investigation of the Bills pending in the interest of the Long Sault Development Company discloses the fact that the company is endeavouring to get legislation that will enable them to develop power south of the International boundary line entirely independent of and without the consent of the Canadian government. The original Malby Bill, introduced December 14, 1909, contained a provision that the authority thereby vested in the company would not be operative until the consent of the construction of the dams, canals and locks and other works of the proper authorities of the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada was obtained. This Bill was submitted to General 0. H. Ernst, the chairman of the American section of the International Waterways Commission, who has devoted about six years to the consideration of this great International waterways, for his opinion. He, with the other members of the American section, joined in the opinion that the co-operation of the two governments was essential and necessary and recommended a section to be attached to the Malby Bill, for the purpose of accomplishing that result, reading as follows:
* This Act shall not become operative until the government of the Dominion of Canada shall signify to the Secretary of State of the United States its consent to the construction of such dam and other structures; provided, that if said consent be not given within two years from the date of this Act, then this Act shall be null and void.'
Notwithstanding this proposition of the original Malby Bill and this .specific recommendation of the American section of the International Waterways Commission, the Bill finally reported by the Rivers and Harbours Committee and the Bill now pending in the Senate, both being identical-entirely omits any provision requiring the consent of the Dominion of Canada, It does contain a section which provides that the Long Sault Development Company shall be subiect to the provisions of the treaty between the United States and Great Britain relative to boundary waters, proclaimed May 13. 1910.
An examination of the treaty discloses the interesting fact that article IV which relates to dams, is subject to approval in accordance with the provisions of article VIII. Article VIII provides that a majority of the commissioners shall have power to render a decision and further provides that in case the commission is equally divided separate reports are to be made on each side by the commission to their own agreement and in that case, the governments are to endeavour to agree. But it is obvious that if they do not agree no result is reached, the result of which is that, if dams proposed to be built by the Long Sault Development Company are not approved by a majority of the commission equally decides, that as far as the Interna-
tional Waterways Commission is concerned the situation of the company is not in the slightest degree changed, because the provisions of the treaty with reference to the approval of the commissioners will have been exhausted without any definite result.
The pending Bill evidently anticipated this situation, because it not only omits all provisions requiring the approval of the Dominion of Canada to the construction of the dams, but expressly provides that the company is 'authorized to construct, maintain and operate for navigation, water-power and other purposes for a period of ninety-nine years, a dam or dams in so much of the St. Lawrence river as lies south of the International boundary line between the United States of America and the Dominion of Canada near Long Sault, Barnhart and Sheik Islands either independently or in connection with like works now erected or to he erected in so much of said river as lies north of said International boundary line.'
It discloses the specific and deliberate purpose of authorizing the Long Sault Development Company to build its dams south of the International boundary line without the consent or approval of the Dominion of Canada.
I strongly urge upon you to lay before parliament the above facts, and oblige,
I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he has any further information in connection with this matter. If the facts as contained in this letter are as he understands them to be with reference to the situation at Washington, and if he has instructed Ambassador Bryce to protest against the Bill now before the United States Senate.
(Prime Minister; President of the Privy Council)
I have heard only a part of the statement of Mr. Allison. For my part, I do not agree at all with some of his conclusions. We have made representations to the government at Washington and the correspondence will be brought down as soon as completed.
I wish to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) whether the treaty now being negotiated with the United States regarding Pelagic Sealing will require to be ratified by this House before it goes into operation or whether it will take effect without the concurrence or assent of this House.
This treaty will take effect without the concurrence or assent of this House, but it is our intention to bring down the treaty as soon as received and if parliament desires to express any opinion upon it it may do so.
SUPPLY-CORRECTION OF * HANSARD.'
YIELDING moved that the House go into Committee of Supply. [DOT]
iVIr. LENNOX. Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I would like to call the attention of the House to an error that occurred in some of the figures I presented yesterday. In doing so I think it is right that I should say that I expect it is my own fault, because I turned my back literally, not figuratively, upon the * Hansard ' reporters when speaking. I was addressing my particular friends on this side of the House, and so I did not give the members of the ' Hansard ' staff a fair opportunity of hearing what I was saying. The first is in reference to the product of Ontario farms in which I am made to say that it increased in two years $250,000,000. What I did say was that the annual product of Ontario farms now amounts to some $250,000,000. Then again there is an error in reference to the amount of American capital invested in Canada. I mentioned distinctly that there was $250,000,000 invested in Canadian industries by American manufacturers. In that connection, in the course of two or three sentences there are several errors. I will read what I said and as I have revised it now. Otherwise, as far as I have gone through the report it is satisfactory, but I have not got through it all yet. This is what I said:
Since 1868 we have doubled in population, we have enormous American industries planted in Canada representing $250,000,000. we have more than that number pf millions of dollars capital wanting to come to Canada, and halted by reason of the attitude of the government at the present time. The area of Canada under cultivation is ten times what is was in 1868; banking capital is ten times what it was; deposits in the banks are nearly thirty times what they were; our railway mileage is about twelve times what it was: and the freightage is about twelve times what it was in 1868.
I hope it will not be said at any future time, if it should turn out. that in the figures later on in the course of the report of my remarks yesterday there should he an error, that I adopt them because I do not refer to them now. As I have said, I have not had time to go over the whole of my speech yesterday and there may be errors later on, but these are important, and I desire to call the attention of the House to the correction.
I have to-day received from Vernon, B. C., the following telegram which with permission of the House I shall read :
Vernon, B.C., Feb. 16. Mr. Martin Burrell, M.P.,
The bumble petition of the ratepayers and residents of the district, municipality of Coldstream, Vernon, British Columbia. Whereas the Dominion government is about
to introduce a Bill providing for reciprocity *with the United States of America on certain commodities under which are included fruit. And whereas the inhabitants of the said district municipality of Coldstream are dependent entirely on the fruit industry for their subsistence and the future prosperity of the district, we your petitioners desire to lay before the House of the Dominion parliament the views of the fruit growers of this district as hereunder set forward. Opinions may and do differ as to the relative merits of protection and free trade, but there can be no difference of opinion in the point that if protection is given at all it should be given equally to all interests according to the requirements. It seems . to be accepted that manufacturers are entitled to protection especially during the early years of any industry. So far as need of protection to the building up of an industry is concerned fruit growing stands in much greater need of protection than any manufactory as must be plain on the face of it to any one conversant with the conditions of this particular industry.