Mr. SPEAKER.

In regard to Question No. 4 (which appeared in the orders of the day yesterday as Question No. 24), in the name of Mr. Barnard, I desire to make the following observations:

In my opinion, there are only two ways in which a question can be properly, withdrawn when once it has been presented for answer in the House, that is, first by written notice by the member, putting the question, to the Clerk of the House stating that the question is withdrawn, or by the member, in his place in the House, informing the Speaker that he desired the question to be dropped or withdrawn.

In the British House of Commons the practice is that no member can ask a question in the name of another member unless upon the request of the member in whose name the question stands. (May 11th edit. p. 251.) The practice, however, in this House has hitherto not been so rigid as this, inasmuch as members have asked questions for other members under the assumption of an implied request, at least, and, in my opinion, it is not desirable that this practice should be changed.

On the subject of answers to questions the following is the practice of the British House. (See May, 251) :

A minister may, if he thinks fit, on the ground of public interest, answer a question appealing on the notice paper, although it is not asked. A minister may also, on the ground of public interest, or some other gronmd, decline to answer a question.

Having this practice in view, I think the hon. minister would be at liberty to answer the question of the hon. member even although the member did not call the same.

Mr. BARNARD.

It was my intentionl to reframe this question, but if the hon. minister wishes to answer, I have no particular objection.

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN (Minister of Militia).

I thought it would be in the public interest to read a statement prepared for me by Sir Percy Lake, chief military adviser of the government, and inspector general, as there seems to be some misapprehension in the mind of the hon. gentleman and that of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Worthington), the latter of whom put the same question the other day. Therefore, on the ruling of Mr. Speaker, I shall proceed to read the statement prepared in answer to this question: Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

1. In liow many instances have 12 pr. B. L.

guns been supplied to regiments or units of garrison artillery? _ ...

2. What regiments of garrison artillery is it the intention of the department to supply with these guns?

3. Are 12 pr. B. L. guns known as field artillery guns, and are they used for purposes of field artillery regiments?

4. Is it the policy of the department to require regiments or units of garrison artillery to train on 12 pr. B. L. guns?

5. Is it the policy of the department to arm for training or other purposes regiments of garrison artillery with field artillery guns?

6. Is any useful purpose to he served by requiring No. 1 company of the 5th regiment of Canadian artillery to train upon 12 pr. B. L. guns ?

7. Why was this company selected out of said regiment to train upon these guns?

8. Is it the intention of the department to supply the 5th regiment of Canadian artillery with horses in order to enable them to train as a cavalry regiment?'

Sir FREDERICK BORDEN:

Instead of answering the question categorically I beg to read a statement on the subject prepared for me by Major-General Sir Percy Lake, chief military adviser of the government and inspector general:

In every fortress guns of various natures and power are permanently mounted in the batteries designed to protect the place, from guns of the largest calibre down to 12 pr. and 6 pr. quick-firing guns, and even machine guns. These are called its ' fixed armament,' and are mainly for use against ships and smaller vessels. Again, a certain number of guns are allotted to every fortress, as what is called ' movable armament,' i.e., mobile light guns capable of being moved about from place to place to meet attack in localities upon- which the fixed armament of the fortress could not be brought to bear. The guns to which, it is presumed, the questions refer, belong to this latter description of armament.

When Esquimalt was taken over from the British government, the ' movable armament ' which had been allotted to it was found to be one battery (6 guns) of 13-pr. muzzle loading guns. In other words, 13-pr. M. L. guns were included in its armament for use in repelling either a landing attack made outside the range of the fixed guns, or an attack from the land side of the fortress, upon which the guns of the ' fixed ' armament could not be brought to bear. For a few years after the departure of the British troops, these 13-pr. guns were retained as part of the movable armament of the fortress, but, in view of the difficulties experienced in maintaining their ammunition (which was rapidly becoming obsolete) in an efficient condition, and the drawback that this gun used ordinary gunpowder, and not smokeless, it was always intended to replace them bv 12-pr. B. L. guns firing smokeless powder, as soon as these latter should become available in consequence of the rearmament of the field artillery generally with the new 18-pr. guns.

The 12-pr. B. L. guns to which the question refers are assumed to be the battery of 12-pr. B. L. guns which has recently been sent to Victoria for this purpose.

Again, it is not correct to say that these 12-pr. guns, or indeed any guns of any nature, are ' supplied to regiments or units of garrison artillery.' All guns are supplied and belong to the fortress only, and the corps or men told off to work or drill with any particular gun may, at any time, be changed, and indeed often are changed as circumstances require. For the working of the particular guns in question, a company or part of a company of the 5th regiment, C. A., will now be detailed, probably the same company which, in previous years, has been detailed to train, and has trained, with the old 13-pr. muzzle loading guns, which have now- been taken away. The selection of the particular company or part of a company of the 5th regiment to be trained in the use of these guns will be made by the officer commanding the regiment, in communication with the officer commanding the Esquimalt defences.

It may be noted that, in the case of Halifax, the movable armament includes, and has, for many years past, included, among others, 15-pr. B. L. field guns, while this gun and the 12-pr. B. L. gun are in use for the same purpose in many of the fortified ports of Great Britain and the empire generally. It is considered that, for the special conditions of Esquimalt, 12-pr. B. L. guns are well suited, probably better suited than would be the 15-pr., inasmuch as they are lighter and more easily handled on bad roads.

Note.-The new 18-pr. field guns are nowhere allotted for this purpose.

MANITOBA AND NORTHWEST TERRITORY^ FISHERIES.

Mr. GLEN CAMPBELL.

Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask a question of the hon. the acting Minister of Marine and Fisheries. A report was made five or six years ago by the commission which lately sat in Manitoba and the Northwest territory inquiring into matters pertaining to the fisheries there. The hon. minister promised that the report would be printed as soon as possible and laid on the table. When will it be laid on the table? I regret that the hon. minister is not here to reply and regret still more the reason why.

I -will have the matter inquired into at once and report as soon as I have an answer.

Mr. HERRON.

I asked for a return about the middle of November regarding a sale of Indian lands of the Peigan Indians in Alberta. I am very anxious to have the return and would like to know when we may expect it.

Hon. FRANK OLIVER.

I laid it on the table a few minutes ago.

Mr. BRADBURY.

I would like to call the attention of the hon. the Minister of the Interior to the fact that the return furnished this House on the 11th of March is incomplete. There was a letter written by one Rainway, at Selkirk, regarding the expenditure of $500 and there are no details. There is a letter from the Indian Department calling attention to the omission. Could the minister furnish details of that expenditure?

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

Might I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister whether or not any further progress has been made with regard to the Waterways Treaty.

Sir WILFRID LAURIER.

Yes, there are some subsidiary negotiations going on now with the view of forming our own judgment with regard to one of the points at issue.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN.

It is rumored that some difficulty has occurred in connection with the ratification of the French Treaty. Is there any ground for that rumour?