Mr. LADNER:

The Prime Minister may not have prepared it himself, but the intended effect of the statement was to be entirely political and to affect the next election.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The statement was to give the house exact information as to the modifications of the treaty, and in giving that information I merely complied with my duty.

Mr. BENNETT:

The hon. gentleman is talking about Doctor Tolmie's letter.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The letter speaks for itself; it is an expression of his beliefs from the Premier of British Columbia.

Mr. BENNETT:

About another treaty altogether.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

About the previous treaty, which the present one so completely reproduces.

Mr. LADNER:

The Prime Minister has stated that the differences between the treaties were of minor importance, but he takes great care to expand the degree of difference which exists with respect to every particular clause. Speaking for the members on this side of the house I want to say that their sentiments and desire were to view the clauses of the treaty between Canada and the United States in the interests of Canada, and to safeguard the great industry concerned. Had we been in a state of animated disturbance like my good friend the Minister of National Health (Mr. King), during his speech between last year and this year we might have developed the subject matter of the treaty distinctly along partisan lines. That, however, was not the intention of hon. members on this side of the house. The idea was to produce a sound treaty, and the fact that modifications have been made is indicative that changes were necessary. The fact that the Prime Minister was willing to let the treaty stand last year and bring it up this year during the last days of the session is indicative of the fact that he could not have had a full faith in the soundness of the treaty last year. Perhaps

Cockeye Salmon Fisheries

I should not put it that way, but I may say that at least he must have been satisfied that it could not have been put through last year. I regret the position taken by ithe Prime Minister when he uses this treaty to develop a bias of political partisanship where circumstances did not require and did not warrant such action. After all we are concerned with a public question highly important in international affairs and with the working out of the ideas contained in the treaty. It 'has constructive features and its operation might be beneficial to Canada as a whole, in which we as citizens and members of parliament are interested.

I commend the treaty; I believe the principles involved in both the treaties of last year and this year were sound, and that good will be the result. I reflect the suggestions made by some other hon. members that wisdom, discretion and care should be exercised in the presentation of our case to the commission, because we will not only be faced with important and difficult problems but we will be met by the best brains of the United States.

Section agreed: to.

On section 2-Inconsistent legislation.

Mr. BENNETT:

The manner of approach in dealing with international problems is of first-rate importance. When I read from Hansard of last year as to the manner in which we approached this problem, and contrast it with the observations made by the Minister of National Health and to a lesser degree the right hon. the Prime Minister, I am perfectly content that it be left to the public to judge as to whether we on this side of the house have approached this matter in a spirit of narrow partisanship. I have been attacked with great ferocity by one of the newspaper organs of the hon. gentleman opposite, the Vancouver Sun, for the position which I took last year in connection with the treaty. The treaty submitted last year has vanished, and another has taken its place; the treaty submitted last year was never discussed in this house. It was referred to a committee and in that committee it was discussed, the evidence was taken down and is recorded as a matter of history in the proceedings of this parliament. In view of what took place in the committee the right hon. the Prime Minister withdrew the treaty.

No.

Mr. BENNETT:

The Solicitor General

says no.

Mr. CANNON:

I never said anything.

Mr. BENNETT:

If hon. members will

look at Hansard

Mr. CANNON:

I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon; I did not say anything.

Mr. BENNETT:

I thank the Solicitor

General; some one else said it, but I thought it was he. It must have been someone sitting beside him. Appearances are sometimes deceptive and remarks do not always indicate with the greatest degree of certainty the individual who made them. On that occasion I think the Prime Minister took a very proper course. He said that he had taken such action for the purpose of enabling the matter to foe further considered. Hansard reports his remarks as follows:

We believe that it would be in the best interests of all people interested that it should be withdrawn because of the attitude expressed in the committee by some of the members from British Columbia-

At that time the right hon. gentleman read into the record telegrams which had passed between the 'premier of British Columbia and himself. The position which I took at that time is reported as follows:

Mr. Speaker, I think the conclusion at which the right hon. gentleman has arrived is a sound one in the premises. I do not know that that will strengthen his own opinion, but at least that is my view.

Then I made the following observations: I may say, Mr. Speaker, that so far as we who sit to your left are concerned, with respect to all matters dealing with international relations we approach them in a spirit entirely non-political, or at least we endeavour to do so. It is with us not a question of Liberal or Conservative, not a question of the opposition or the government. I think we are all agreed that a satisfactory treaty is desirable. In view of the fact that the propagation of soekeye salmon takes place in the province of British Columbia and thiat the larger number of the salmon has heretofore been caught in American waters, it becomes of great importance that we should, if possible, arrive at some arrangement with our neighbours. A satisfactory treaty is therefore not only desirable, but is necessary for the preservation of the industry and the making available for food of this very valuable fish. But that a treaty is desirable does not make it imperative for a public man to accept as the last word any treaty that has been submitted; and there are acute divisions of opinions as to the desirability of this particular treaty. Some of the terois of the treaty are found upon analysis to be most undesirable from a national viewpoint.

The right hon. the Prime Minister made further observations, during which he read a telegram from the British Columbia Packers, Limited, and in the end I said:

Under these circumstances I congratulate the Prime Minister upon taking the course he has, which I think is in the public interest, wholly

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries

devoid of any political consideration, and which will enable the public, by careful study and research, to ascertain fully what is involved in this treaty at this time. In that attitude vie approach the solution of the problem, and not in any narrow party sense.

The hon. Minister of Public Health has referred to the fact that there were differences between the federal party in this house known as the official opposition and the Conservative government of the province of British Columbia. There is no doubt about the fact that the government of British Columbia expressed its approval of the treaty in formal terms, and that the premier of that province was most anxious that it should be adopted. After parliament had prorogued I ventured to point out to him certain considerations which I thought should influence his judgment, to which his attention had not been directed at that time. Those matters were considered by him. In December last, in consequence of considerations, as the right hon. gentleman says, which appeared to the American Senate to be good, the treaty was withdrawn from the Senate where it had been sent for ratification. It will be remembered that when we were sitting here last year, on June 4, 1929, it was thought that the American Senate might decline to ratify or approve the treaty, but at any rate the treaty was withdrawn in December last from the Senate and thereupon a successful effort was made to negotiate a new treaty, which is the document now before the house.

May I point out that so far as the government of British Columbia is concerned, doubtless members of this house have seen an interview given by Premier Tolmie in which he stated that he had sent a telegram to me asking me to communicate with the Prime Minister before the treaty was signed, and make such suggestions as I thought desirable. I am bound to say that the attitude of the right hon. gentleman was one of great frankness. He received my expressions of opinion with great courtesy and I shall presently point out that I think the substance of the few suggestions I did make have been accepted. I certainly did not approach the right hon. gentleman at the instance of the premier of British Columbia in any party sense, and I am bound to say that he did not consider the observations I made in any party sense either. He thanked me for what I had said to him and I thanked him for the opportunity he afforded me to present the views which I held. More than that, he was good enough to indicate in a general sense what the contemplated treaty was, and the matter ended.

Now, the treaty that is submitted for ratification to-day in my judgment is being submitted in the form in which such an instrument should come before this house. Last year I pointed out that instead of a mere resolution being submitted it was the better opinion of the authorities, especially of Professor McNair of Cambridge University, who edited the last edition of Professor Oppen-heimer's book on international law, that any treaty which involved a charge upon the revenues of the country should be submitted to parliament by bill and not by resolution. When the right hon. gentleman the other day stated that he proposed to submit the treaty for the approval of this house by bill, I thought then and still think that he and the government are to be congratulated for having accepted not my opinion only but the opinion expressed by Professor McNair and the leading authorities as to the way in which a treaty should be considered by a parliament when it is desired to ratify it.

Now let us ask just a few questions with respect to the treaty, and in no narrow sense. The Minister of National Health apparently has not read the treaty with the care one would expect. There are certain very well defined changes between the document now submitted for ratification and the document which was before the house last year. One of the most essential matters, and the really essential matter about which a great deal of opposition was raised last year in the committee, was this: We did believe and held the view very strongly that it was not desirable that the commission should acquire property or purchase real estate. I stated my reasons with great frankness. This treaty meets that difficulty, and in my judgment meets it in a manner that should commend itself to every thoughtful Canadian. The concluding paragraph of article 8 is as follows:

Each high contracting party shall acquire and place at the disposition of the commission any land within its territory required for the construction and maintenance of hatcheries, rearing ponds and other such facilities as set forth in article III.

In my judgment that is the correct method under which an international commission should operate when dealing with problems which affect both parties. Instead of asking an international commission to acquire the property we say that the respective governments will acquire the property for the use of the commission, and what is the benefit of that? I think the benefit was acknowledged and admirably expressed by the reference made by the right hon. Prime Minister to the legal

2S12

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries

result that follows at the expiration or termination of the treaty. If the high contracting parties own the property, obviously any improvements made upon the property so owned will inure to the benefit of the party who owns the property, thereby relieving us of any difficulty as to whether or not the commission should own property upon which joint moneys have been expended; because it is contemplated that moneys will be expended alike by the United States and the Dominion of Canada and, that money being so expended upon the property of each of the nationals, it follows that the improvements so placed will become the property of the national that owns the land in question. Instead of the commission owning the land, as was contemplated last year, we now have the government acquiring the land for the use of the commission, thereby removing from the treaty one point about which we made the strongest possible statements in the committee, of which I was not a member, but when I say "we" I mean our friends.

That there was another point about which-

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

Before my hon. friend leaves the point on which he has been touching, I assume he recognizes that the advice given by the Department of Justice with respect to the significance of the word "acquire" was correct.

Mr. BENNETT:

That it did not mean anything?

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

That nothing further has been secured under this present treaty with respect to the point which my hon. friend has raised. The Department of Justice contends we would have been in the same position under the treaty as it formerly existed.

Mr. BENNETT:

I entirely differ; I think the right hon. gentleman has adopted the correct course by providing that the land does not belong to the commission but to the governments which acquire it.

Mr. MACKENZIE KING:

The Department of Justice held that under the former treaty that result would follow.

Mr. BENNETT:

But the distinction, in my judgment, is that the whole problem has been removed from the realm of doubt and now becomes a matter of certainty. In the one instance you say the government owns the property and in the other instance you said the commission owned the property, and it would be a fruitful source of difficulty if, after the expiration of the treaty, one of the con-

tracting parties should say "We have spent large sums of money upon this particular area of land that belongs to the commission, and we claim it to be ours." You have no longer left it in the realm of conjecture and doubt but have removed it from that realm and made it certain that the commission does not acquire or own the property but that the respective governments purchase and acquire the property for the use of the commission. It follows as an implication of law that any improvements made upon the land so acquired by either national or by anyone else shall inure to and become the property of the party who owns the land. That, it seems to me, is highly desirable, and I congratulate the government upon having made that change in the treaty, which I consider to be of the utmost importance.

The other point is one to which too much importance cannot be attached, namely, that there shall be two members representing each of the parties affected voting on any particular question before it can be resolved at all, either favourably or unfavourably. In other words, instead of leaving it to three members of the commission from Canada, with one American commissioner, to determine a question, there must be at least two members from the United States voting affirmatively with two from Canada before there can be any final action taken. Last year such determination as I have indicated was limited in its operation. It is now applied to every feature of the treaty, and I think no thoughtful Canadian will but agree that this is highly desirable.

Then there was the question of obstructions in the river. One of the questions which we did endeavour to press in the committee was that the Fraser river ultimately would become useful for the development of a great volume of hydro electric power and that we would have grave difficulties if we gave a commission composed of three foreigners and three Canadians the power to remove obstructions in that river. That power now has been taken from the commission. All the commission can do is to recommend to the national authority, namely the government of the country, the desirability of removing the obstructions and the respective governments of the countries assume the duty. Every Canadian desirous of maintaining friendly relations with a nearby country will rejoice in this possible source of difficulty having been removed. Instead of the commission being charged with the power to remove obstructions, such removal can be made only by the government of the country upon the recommendations of the

Sockeye Salmon Fisheries

2S13

commission, thereby leaving the exercise of discretion to the government of the country whose territory may be affected. If there is any hon. member of this house who does not think that that is a distinct advantage, then I am sure he is not present this afternoon.

One other matter was referred to by the Minister of National Health (Mr. King), and one which could not have arisen had it not been that this treaty was rejected last year. That delay of nearly a year has been in the interests of Canada and I think of the United States as well. There are three distinct areas of water affected: First, the fresh water of

the Fraser river; second, the coastal waters of both the United States and Canada, and third, the open sea-the Spanish banks. The jurisdiction of Canada and the United States over the last named body of water is, of course, no greater than the rights of other people. In other words, the Scandinavians may utilize those waters just as freely as do the fishing boats from Canada or the United States. The treaty gives us the privilege of police jurisdiction over our own nationals and in the exercise of that police power we can make certain that when other nations utilize these fishing banks the catch, which can be landed only in the United States or Canada, would be considered as contraband-using the word in the broadest sense-and would not be permitted to be landed. In that way the police jurisdiction would have affected the purpose intended. To remove the possibility of a difference in that regard, the language of the treaty has been modelled upon that of other treaties, and such offending vessels would be delivered to their own nationals to be dealt with according to the law of the country concerned.

I think we can approach this matter with a great deal of satisfaction, not only because the treaty is better in every sense but because it has made it more difficult for, shall I say, differences to arise between the United States authorities and our own. That is a consideration of the first importance, that the sources or possibilities of differences should be removed. I submit that the present treaty does that to a much greater extent than did the treaty submitted last year. In view of the attacks which have been so unjustly made by those who apparently do not know anything about the treaty, it can be said with pride that because of the treaty having been withdrawn last year by this government, and withdrawn by the American senate in December, a new treaty has been negotiated which removes from the field of international difficulties many causes which undoubtedly would

be a source of friction in the administration of the treaty. That being so, it affords me a great deal of pleasure, in view of the opportunity I had to make suggestions to the right hon. the Prime Minister and the sense in which he received them, although somewhat at variance with the observations made to-day, to commend the government for having negotiated this treaty. I express the hope that it will be ratified by the senate of the United States at the earliest possible moment.

I agree with the observations which have been made as to the desirability of the best possible commissioners being appointed. I trust that political considerations will not influence the government in the appointment of these commissioners. The United States government has been very careful in dealing with another treaty not to permit political considerations to influence appointments, and I hope that will be the case with this treaty. If that spirit is observed in the appointment of the commissioners, we will do a great deal to bring to its full fruitfulness one of the most important and valuable industries on the Pacific coast.

It is true that the fish are spawned in Canada ; it is true that they go out to sea, and it is true that when they come back fit for human food and seek again their original habitat, they pass by the territory of the United States, so that if great care were not exercised practically the whole catch would be made by them. This treaty provides that the catch shall be divided equally between the two countries, but therein lies one of the remaining sources of difficulty. How that matter will be worked out depends upon the common sense, good judgment and skill of the commissioners who it is hoped will exercise their judgment calmly, their power firmly, and their authority with discretion. When that is done I am sure that Canadians will rejoice that we have been able to secure more of the catch than has been the case heretofore, although it is clear that by reason of the fish having their birth in our country we should be entitled to at least one half.

I deprecate the efforts made by my hon. friend the Minister of National Health, and in a lesser degree by the Prime Minister, to suggest that there is a division of opinion between the premier of British Columbia and myself. They hoped, for reasons which are most obvious, to be able to capitalize that, but I hasten to assure both hon. gentlemen that any efforts they make in that regard will be fruitless and unavailing and that at the appropriate moment forces over which they have no control will be found to be allied in the

Maple Sugar Industry

future, as they have been in the past, with the party with which I am associated, for the purpose of maintaining its principles and securing a decisive victory at the polls.