BILL INTRODUCED. Bill (A1), An Act respecting the Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. Davis. FIRST READINGS. Bill (51), An Act respecting the Bronson Company.-Hon. Mr. Belcourt. Bill (73), An Act respecting the Canadian Northern Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. Watson. Bill (75), An Act respecting the Continental Fire Insurance Company of Canada. Hon. Mr. Watson. Bill (78), An Act respecting the Patent of Otto Weils, Limited.-Hon. Mr. Watson. Bill (96), An Act to amend the Weights and Measures Act.-Hon. Mr. Lougheed. Bill (103), An Act to prohibit the manufacture, importation and sale of matches nade with white phosphorus.-Hon. Mr Lougheed. THIRD READINGS. Bill (33), An Act respecting the Acadia Loan Corporation, and to change its name to the Mortgage Corporation of Nova Scotia.-Hon. Mr. Power. Bill (35), An Act to incorporate the Bank of Alberta.-Hon. Mr. Talbot. Bill (38), An Act respecting the Sterling Trusts Corporation.-Hon. Mr. Kerr. Bill (S), An Act for the relief of Eliza Jane McLaughlin.-Hon. Mr. Talbot, SECOND READINGS. Bill (T), An Act respecting the Sterling Life Assurance Company of Canada,Hon. Mr. Talbot. Bill (J), An Act respecting W. C. Edwards and Company, Limited.-Hon. Mr Beique. Bill (67), An Act to incorporate the Norfolk and Elgin Railway Company.-Hon. Mr Ratz. Bill (72), An Act respecting the Calgary and Fernie Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. DeVeber. Bill (76), An Act to incorporate Les Sœurs de la Charité de l'Hôpital Saint Antoine de Le Pas.-Hon. Mr. Bolduc. The Senate adjourned until to-morrow at three o'clock. THE SENATE. Friday, March 20, 1914. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock. Prayers and routine proceedings. BANKING AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE. MOTION. Hon. Mr. WATSON moved that the name of Hon. Mr. Costigan be placed on the Committee on Banking and Commerce. He said: My reason for making this motion is that there is a vacancy on the Banking and Commerce Committee, caused by the death of Sir George Ross. The motion was agreed to. MINISTER OF RAILWAYS IN ENGLAND QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I deeply regret to have to worry the honourable leader of the House Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-Not at all; that is what he is here for. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I am obliged to do so on account of his position as representative of the Government in this House, and when I address him it is not as leader of the Senate (because as such I respect him most profoundly) but as the representative of the Government in this Chamber, responsible to the people. I desire to ask him, has the Government up to the present moment taken any steps to ascertain if one of their ministers has sided with a rebel in London on the occasion of the presentation to him of a sword, to be drawn against the British Government and friend will give the same old answer, “I the British Empire? I know my hon. have no official information'. Has the tain whether Hon. Mr. Frank Cochrane, Government taken any measures to ascer Minister of Railways of the Dominion of and shook hands over a sword, to break Canada, was present at that demonstration, the British Government and Mr. Asquith, and help to destroy the empire? Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-I would suggest to my hon. friend, if he wishes any informa tion upon this question, that he should give notice in the usual way, so that the inquiry may appear upon the Order Paper. I shall be very happy to give attention to any such inquiry. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I will do that. SECOND READING. Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED moved the second reading of Bill (98), An Act to amend The Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908, and amending Acts. He said: This is a Bill proposing to extend the time for the surrender of rights of holders under the Volunteer Bounty Act, 1908, and amending Acts, to enable them to take advantage of the Government paying $500 for such surrender in the event of their making it. If any further explanation is desired, when we go into Committee I shall be very glad to make it. Hon. Mr. DAVIS-Does this allude to what we call South African scrip? Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-Yes. Hon. Mr. DAVIS-Do I understand the hon. gentleman to say that the Government proposes to give $500 to each holder who exercised the option to surrender his rights ? Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-Yes; it does not extend the time for filing the warrants on land. That time is exhausted, so it is now proposed to pay $500 to holders of the scrip in lieu of the rights which they enjoyed to file their warrants upon land. The motion was agreed to. SECOND READINGS. Bill (53), An Act respecting The Empire Life Assurance Company of Canada.-Hon. Mr. Tessier. Bill (57), An Act respecting British Trust Company.-Hon. Mr. Tessier. Bill (58), An Act to incorporate The Sudbury, Kepawa and Bell River Railway Company.-Hon. Mr. Gordon. Bill (66), An Act respecting the patent of The National Wood Distilling Company. Hon. Mr. Tessier. THE SENATE. Tuesday, March 24, 1914. The SPEAKER took the Chair at Three o'clock. Prayers and routine proceedings. ST. JOHN'S GATE, QUEBEC. Hon. Mr. CHOQUETTE rose to Call the attention of the Government to the correspondence exchanged between His Honour the Mayor of Quebec, and the right hon. the Prime Minister, and to inquire from the Government whether it is informed that the historical name of the 'Saint John's Gate,' which practically forms part of the fortifications of Quebec, is to be exchanged to that of 'Connaught Gate.' If so, is it the intention of the Government to allow the said change to be made? He said: I did not intend to say much about the question I have put to the Government, but it is very important to know if, really, the name of St. John's Gate is to be changed. We in Quebec would all be very glad to have some monument which would carry the name of our present Governor General, but I am afraid it would be very hard to give the name of our present Governor General to St. John's Gate. It would take generations before we could make the people believe that St. John's Gate should be called by the name of Connaught Gate. I have been surprised at the correspondence exchanged between the mayor of Quebec and the Governor General; I am quite sure that the idea never originated in the head of our mayor of Quebec. According to my information this movement-an unfortunate movement-was started from Ottawa by some parties who would like to make their bow to the Governor General. I am sure, for many reasons, that the letter which has been signed by the mayor of Quebec was never written by Bill (V), An Act for the relief of Lenore him; he just put his name to the letter Power. Hon. Mr. Derbyshire. because he was asked to do so. It was not fair to accuse our mayor of doing what he did in order to have himself knighted; I if such accusations were true, it would think that is very far from his mind. Even make the situation still worse. At any rate I wish to say-and I say it on behalf of the citizens of Quebec-that they would be very sorry indeed if the old name of La Porte St. Jean were changed to the most respectable name of our Governor General. The old name is an historical one, and has been in use in Quebec for over two cen turies. Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN-Three centuries. Hon. Mr. CHOQUETTE-It would not be fair to the province of Quebec that the stroke of the pen should change the name. I would have been delighted to have some monument in Quebec baptised with the name of our Governor General. We have been informed by the Government-and think it is true-that they are going to construct large works in that province. They are going to build a union station; to dam the St. Charles river; to construct the Transcontinental works at St. Malo; to build a dry-dock, and according to the Postmaster General, they are going to have a tunnel in order to reach the heart of the city of Quebec. I must suppose the Government is serious and is going to carry out its promises, and it will be fitting for the Government, and the people of Quebec will be delighted that one of these large works shall be baptised with the name of our Governor General. We might call the Connaught Dry Dock, the Connaught Tunnels or the Connaught Work Shops after the Governor General. I protest against the taking away of the historical name of La Porte St. Jean, which has been spoken of in every book and in every newspaper article written in regard to Quebec, and I am sure the Governor General himself would not be in favour of the elimination of that historical name. If he has accepted the change, erroneous representations must have been made to him, and I would not blame him for it. But, if the facts were put before him, he never would have consented to his name being attached to this gate. I hope the name of La Porte St. Jean will remain as long as Quebec stands. Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-I may say to the hon. gentleman that the Government has no information on the subject beyond that which is contained in the correspondence to which he alludes. The matter is one that would be left entirely to the civic authorities of Quebec. The mayor of Quebec in a letter written to the Prime Minister of Canada,-which is in the correspondence,-writes as follows: May I add the suggestion that it would be specially agreeable to the citizens of Quebec if the new gateway bore the name of our present distinguished Governor General. Nothing has been done in the matter as yet, and the Government will be controlled entirely by the wishes of the civic authorities of that city. THE MINISTER OF RAILWAYS IN ENGLAND. Hon. Mr. CLORAN-I desire to make a frank apology to the hon. leader of this House. I promised him at the last sitting that I would put my question on the Order Paper for to-day, in regard to the famous Carson-Cochrane Sword issue, and I apologize to him now for not having kept my word, I do so for two reasons. I am fairly well satisfied, and I think the country is also satisfied, that the Government of the day is utterly unable and incapable of controlling the actions of their ministers either at home or abroad. I am also convincedand the country is with me that the ignorance of the Government in regard to those large questions regarding imperial affairs is quite dense. Under these circumstances I think it would not avail anything to push the matter any further or to place the question on the Order Paper. INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION ON WATERWAYS BILL. THIRD READING. Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED moved the third reading of Bill (90), An Act to amend an Act relating to the establishment and expenses of the International Joint Commission under the Waterways Treaty of January 11, 1909. Hon. Mr. DAVIS-Could the hon. gentleman give us some idea of the number of engineers employed by the commission, and the salaries they receive? Hon. Mr. LOUGHEED-I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend detailed information, such as he asks. If, however, he desires information of that character, if he will favour us with the usual notice of inquiry, I shall be very glad to obtain the information. Hon. Mr. DAVIS-I shall put an inquiry on the Order Paper. Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN-I desire to thank the hon. leader of the House for allowing this matter to stand until to-day, because I wish to make a few remarks on this very important subject. I fear that many hon. members of this House do not fairly realize the importance of this International Joint Commission. This commission was established by a law passed by the Government of the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier, and it was in line with many other measures, always looking to the autonomy of Canada -that is, allowing this country to handle were three Americans appointed, supposed as much as possible its own affairs. The to be jurists of great repute, and two proof of this statement is found in the Canadians, and one whom I shall operations of the present commission. call an Englishman-Lord Alverstone. Before this law was passed and this com- The arbitration went on. The understandmission was established, I do not think ing was that if the commissioners divided there can be found any other instance in equally-if the three representatives of the which the high contracting parties-that is United States upheld the contentions of the United States of America and Canada their country, and the three representing -were allowed to deal absolutely for them- Canada upheld the contentions of their selves, without having one or more repre- side-there would be no finding. If there sentatives of the Imperial Government on was to be a finding it would have to be by such commission. This International Joint a majority. In that case a majority was Commission is composed of three gentleobtained, but how? It was obtained by men from the United States of America, our representatives, Sir Louis Jetté, at that time Lieutenant Governor of the province and also three commissioners represent of Quebec, and Sir Alan Aylesworth, aftering Canada, who are Canadians. There is wards Minister of Justice, being left by no one appointed to represent the Imperial Lord Alverstone, who sided with the reParliament, which shows that the policy presentatives of the United States and deinaugurated by the late Government in cided in their favour. The consequence was trying to deal with our own affairs has that we lost territory on that occasion. been recognized. This has been a great step towards our obtaining absolute control of our affairs. On all the other commissions you will find there were always some representatives of the Imperial Parliament. Going back to 1871, to the time of the Fisheries Treaty, to when that question was submitted to arbitration in 1876, we find that there was one commissioner for Canada, Sir A. T. Galt, also a commissioner representing the United States, and a third who was a foreigner. He was not a Britisher, not a member of the empire. In that case Sir A. T. Galt, representing Canada, was ably assisted by a very famous lawyer in Montreal, Mr. Joseph Doutre, and also by Sir Louis Davies, now of the Supreme Court. They carried their point absolutely, and it was decided that that arbitration was an qualified success as far as Canada concerned. Later on, when the arbitration took place at The Hague on the North un was Hon. Mr. CLORAN-That is what they always do. Hon. Mr. CASGRAIN-I think the Senate, which is free from the turmoil of politics, should give special attention to international questions. It might be well for us to be informed of the good work that has been done by this International Commission. The best evidence that the work is being carried on satisfactorily--and I do not wish to detract from the leader of the House when I say so-is that he admitted frankly that he was not very familiar with the operations of this commission. That speaks volumes for the manner in which this commission has managed many important questions, without the assistance of this Government. They have managed to settle very difficult questions, some of which I might mention. The commission assembled for the first time in January and February, 1912, at Washington, and it naturally took a couple of months to settle the rules of procedure, and the rules and regulations that were to govern the commission, and to have these rules approved by the two high contracting parties. Because -remember always-anything done by this commission is done as between the United States and the Empire; the commissioners on either side act under the provisions of a treaty. Atlantic fisheries question, Canada was represented by Mr. Aylesworth, now Sir Alan Aylesworth, and Mr. Ewart, well known for his Kingdom Papers.' The British Attorney General simply took part in some of the argument, but all the diplomacy of the case and all the argument were left to Canadians, and there, also, Canada was successful. It has been quite different when gentlemen have been appointed from Briefly stated, and leaving aside certain the other side of the water. We all remem- special powers given to the commission, ber the arbitration that took place over as to Niagara river, Milk river, etc., the those small islands in the Pacific ocean jurisdiction and powers of the commission near Prince Rupert. Canada was are defined: represented on that commission. There 1. In articles III and IV of the treaty, REVISED EDITION which empower the commission to render final decisions in the cases of uses, obstructions and diversions of boundary waters on either side of the line and of the construction or maintenance of remedial or protective works, dams or other obstructions in waters flowing from boundary waters, etc. 2. In article IX of the treaty, under which questions or matters of difference arising between the high contracting parties involving the rights, obligations or interests of either in relation to the other or to the inhabitants of the other along the common frontier may be referred from time to time to the commission for examination and report, and 3. In article X of the treaty, under which any questions or matters of difference arising between the high contracting parties involving the rights, obligations or interests of the United States or Canada either in relation to each other or to their respective inhabitants may be referred for decision to the commission by the consent of the two parties. It might appear from this that the sole purpose of the commission was to deal with the boundary waters between the United States and Canada, but you will find in article X of the treaty that any question or matter of difference arising between the high contracting parties, involving the rights, obligations, or interests of the United States or Canada, either in relation to each other or their respective inhabitants, may be referred for decision to the commission by the consent of the two parties. Then, according to another article of the treaty, other matters of difference may be and are referred, but not for final decision-matters affecting the inhabitants of either country along the common front may be referred from time to time to the commission for examination and report. The cases referred to the commission for report are not so serious, but in article IX, cases are referred to it for decision. Government erred, because in making the channel they did not take into consideration the cross-currents. The channel was constructed to allow vessels to go down the river. There is another channel on the Canadian side which is used by ships going up the Detroit river, and this system of navigation obtains almost all the way up to Sault Ste. Marie. Everybody knows what a tremendous trade is done on the Detroit river. After the Livingstone channel had been completed and in operation it was found to be very difficult for navigation by large steamers. Some of those vessels keep in the channel. It was proposed then are 600 feet in length, and they could not a dyke in order to divert the to erect had not had this commission to deal with the matter, probably the United States Government would have gone on with the work. We would have had to appeal to the imperial Government to get a commission appointed, because we must recognize the fact that we cannot in any way approach any Government in the world except through the regular channel, the Colonial Office. We do not exist as a nation. We are a colony, and until we change our status we will remain a colony, no matter what people may say on one side or the other of politics. If it had not been for this commission it would have taken a long time, perhaps, to prevent the erection of this dyke. The commission met in Detroit, had several sittings, heard witnesses and experts, heard counsel on both sides, and finally found that it was not absolutely necessary to build this dyke from the bottom of Livingstone channel to Bois Blanc island. Such construction would have caused pollution of the water on the Canadian shore, flooded wharves and properties, and every spring accumulated ice on the Canadian side. It was found possible afterwards to erect this dam entirely on United States territory. The first one would have been constructed on the south side of the river-called the almost absolutely on Canadian territory. Livingstone channel about sixteen miles below Detroit. After having made this All the parties consented, and the dyke will now be erected on the United States side, channel, the engineers--although the hon. leader of the Government would have us and there will be no interference with, or believe that Government engineers never flooding, or pollution of the waters on the err-the engineers of the United States' Canadian side. That is one of the ques Now the first question that was submitted to this commission under article IX was one of very great importance to the people of Detroit, Windsor, and Amherstburg, and affected the Detroit river. The United States Government had improved, and in fact in some cases created, a channel |