The following text may have been generated by Optical Character Recognition, with varying degrees of accuracy. Reader beware!

,v ~ ,nwmmgswf ... ..-.:,c‘,â€" v. . «THEYORKIH ,.., RICHMOND HILL, ONTARIO, rini)AY.-MAY n; 1872. ' SU PP,‘ EMENT. ERALDR THE WASHINGTON TREATY. Speech of sir .‘l. Macdonald and Debate. In line Dominion House of Commons, on Friday, May 3, 1872. Ol‘TAVVA, May 4, 1872. Sir JOHN A. MACDONALD rose and said :â€"« ' Mr. Speaker, â€" I move for leave to bring in a Bill to carry into effect Certain clauses of the Treaty negotiated between the United State‘ and Great Britain in 1871. The object of the Bill is stated in the title. validity, so far as Canada is concerned, to the treaty which was framed last year in the manner so well known to the House and country. The bill Iproposed to introduce the other day was simply a bill to suspend those clauses of the Fishery Acts which prevent fishermen of the United States from fishing in the inshore waters of Canada, such suspension to continue during the existence of the treaty. I confined it to that object at that time, be- cause the question really before this House was whether the fishery articles of the treaty should receive the sanction of Parliament or not. As, however, a desire was expressed on the otherside that I should enter into the subject fully on asking leave to bring in the bill, and as, on examining the cognate Act which has been laid before Congress at Washington, I find that all the subjectsâ€"even those subjects which do not require legis» lationâ€"«have been repeated in that Act, in order, one would suppose, to make the Act of the nature of a contract and obligatory during the existence of the Treaty, so that hfi‘geml faith it could not be repealed uring t1 at time, I propose to follow the “course. The Act l/ask leave to bring ‘ i ‘ ‘the first loose, for the sus- ws of Canada, so far . the [Inite'gftafiffi . re W cm“: e- mfprovidés, of mg tlaig' exi.-tence of the Treaty fish «1 fish oil, (except fish of the inland, lakes 0 the United States and of the‘ rivers, emptying into those lakes, and fish wr‘7ea. in oil), being the produce of the ' cries of the United States, shallbe admitted into Canada free of duty. The third clause provides for the continuance of the onding system during the twelve years or longer period provided by the’l‘reaty ; and the fourth clause provides that the right oftran- shipment contained in the 30th clause of the Treaty shall, in like manner, be secured to citizens of the United States during the ex istence of the Treaty. The last clause of the Bill provides that it shall come into effect ‘ Whenever, upon an Order in Council, a pro- clamation of the Governor-General is issued giving effect to the Act. In submitting the Bill in this form, I am aware that objection might be taken to some of the clauses, on the ground that having relation to the ques- tions of trade and money, they should be commenced by resolution adopted in Com- mittee of the “hole. That objection does not apply to the whole of the Billâ€"t0 those clauses which suspend the action of our Fishery Act. But it would affect, according to the general principle, the clause which provides that there shall be no duty on fish and fish oil, and also the clauses respecting the bonding system and transhipment. I do not, however, anticipate that-that objection will be taken, because in «presenting the Bil-l in this form I have followed thc precedent establish- ed in 1854, when the measure relating to the Reciprocity Treaty was introduced in Parlia- ment. It was then held that the Act, having been introduced as based upon a Treaty which was submitted by a message from the Crown, became a matter of public and general policy, and ceased to be merely a matter of trade ; and. although those hon. gentlemen who interested themselves in parliamentary and political matters at that (late will remember that the Act which was introduced by the Attorney-General for Lower Canada in 1854 (Mr. Drunimcnd) was simply an Act declaring that various articles, beingthe produce of the United States, should, during the existence of the Treaty, be received free into Canada, and that the Act repealedthetarifl'w'o tonic, it was not in- troduced by resolution, but after the Treaty had had been submitted and laid on the table, and after a formal message had been brought down by Mr. Morin, the leader of the Govern- ment in the House, to the effect that the bill was introduced with the sanction of the ; Governor-General. I do not, therefore, anti» eipate that objection will be taken by any hon. member, and I suppose the precedent so solemnly laid down at that time will be held to be binding new. Should objection, however, be taken, the clauses of the bill respecting the suspension of the Fishery Act and transhipment are sufficient to be pro- ceeded with in this manner; the other por- tion may be printed in listlics, and canbe brought up as parts of the bill or separately as tum“ ‘iiia‘y s in.“ pi'iizhafiheu ccltt.Lv>,st....'llb a .Iour. brought up as parts of thebill orscparately as resolutions, asmay be thought best. The Jour- nals of the House state that on the 21st of Sept., 1854, Mr. Chauveau submitted a copy of the Treaty which was set out on the face of the journals. On the same day Mr. Drummond asked leave to bring in a bill to give effect to a certain treaty between Her Majesty and the United States of America, and on the 22nd, on the order of the day for the second reading of the bill, Mr. Morin, by command, brought down a message from the Governorâ€"General signify- ing that it was by His Excelleney’s sane- tion it had been introduced, whereupon the House proceeded to the second reading. That bill was simply one declaring that various articles mentioned in the treaty should, during the existence of the treaty, be admitted into this country free of duty. The House, now, Mr. Speaker, if they give _ leave that this bill shall be introduced and read a first time, will be in possession of all of those portions of the Treaty of .‘Vash ington that in any Way come within the action of the Legislature. Although the debate upon this subject will, as a matter of course, take a wide range and Wlll properly include all the subjects con- nected with the Treaty in which Canada has any interest, yet it must not be forgotten that the Treaty as a. whole is in force, with the particular exceptions I have mentioned, and the decision of this House will, after all, . be simply whether the articles of the Treaty extending from the 18th to the 25th shall re- ceive the santion of Parliament, or Whether those portions of the Treaty shall be a dead letter. This subject has excited a great deal of interest, as was natural, in Canada ever since the 8th of May, 1871, when the Treaty was signed at \Vashington. It has been largely discussed in the public prints, and opinions of various kinds have been expressed upon itâ€"some altogether favourable, some alâ€" together opposed, and many others of inter- mediate shades of opinion. And among other parts of the discussion has not been forgotten the personal questionâ€"relating to myself-â€" the position I hold and held as a member of this Government, and as one of the High Com- missionersathashington. Uponthat question I shall have to speak by-and-bye ; but it is . one that has lost much of its intercstfrom the fact that by the introduction of this Bill the House and country will see that the policy of the Government of which I am a member is to carry out, or try to carry out, the Treaty which I signed as a plenipotentiary of Her hIajesty. Under the reservation made in the Treaty, this House and the Legislature of Prince Edward Island have full power to ac- cept the fishery articles or reject them. In that matter this House and Parliament have full and complete control. (Hear, hear). No matter what may be the consequences of the actioq~ of this l’arliaineutL no matter wnhat 1"” the co ' ‘ , , - v. “Edema United ald and the United 3 , , . ‘ I ay be the conse- . es as to the existence, 0f the present " overnment of Canada, it ihust not be for. gotten that, this House has full power to reject these clauses of the Treaty if they please, and maintain the right of Ca- nada to exclude Americans from our inshore fisheries, as if the Treaty had never been v made. (Hear, hear.) That reservation was fully provided in the Treaty. It was made a portion of it'â€"â€"an essen- tial portionâ€"and if it had not been so made the name of the Minister I of Justice of Canada would not have been at- 1 tached to it as a plenipotentary of England. (Hear, hear.) That right has- been reserved, and this Parliament has fqll power to deal with the whole question. I ‘ will bye-and-bye speak more at length as to ‘ the part I took in the negotiations, but I feel ‘ that thatreservationhaving been made I only , performed a duty â€"â€" a grave and serious I duty, but still my dutywiuattaching my sig- nature to the Treaty as one of Her Majesty’s representatives and servants. (Hear, hear.) v It is to give 5 ‘ demand on the United States Government Ly ery grave clraractc . i A. Galt) at that time Finance Minister, and the present Lieut.-Governor of Ontario went j to lVashington on behalf of the Government j of Canada. t is a matter of history that all § their exertions failed ; and after their failure, by general consentâ€"wan consent . in which I believe the people of Can- ada Were as one ranâ€"we came to i the conclusion that it would be humiliating ' to Canada to make any further exertions at \Vashington, or to do anything more in the 1 way of pressing for a renewal of that instru- ment; and the people of this country with 5 great energy addressed themselves to find ; other channels of trade, other means of (le- fveloping and sustaining our various indusâ€" ' tries, in which I am happy to say they have been completely successful. (Hear, hear.) j Immediately on the expiration of the Treaty our right to the exclusive use of the inshore fisheries returned to us, and it will be in the remembrance of the House that Her Majesty’s Government desired us not to re- sume that right, at least for a year, to the exclusion of American fisher- ‘ men, and that the prohibition of I be put in force either by Canada or the Mari- time Provinces. All the Provinces, I believe, declined to accede to the suggestion, and it was pressed strongly on behalf of the late Province of Canada that it would be against our interests if foramoment after the Treaty ceased we allowed it to be sup» posed that American fishermen had a right to come into our waters as before; and it was only because of the pressure of Her M ajesty’s Government, and our desire to be in accord with that Government, as well as because of our desire to carry with us the moral support of Great Britain, and the ' material assistance of her fleet, that We assented, with great reluctance, to the inâ€" troduction of a system' of licenses for one year at a nominal fee or rate. This was done avowedly by us for the purpose of asserting our ri r t. No greater or st?" .r v mode of asserfiaright and obtaining acknowledgmentmf it by those who desir td'CIIlSeI‘ our v\rVili,,§i‘$i for the .‘purpose a ' ing could be devic ‘d, than by exactingâ€" - ~ , ment for the per~ ssion, and therefore it w that we assent (Hear, hear.) Although in 1866 that system was commenced,it did not come immediately into force. “'e had not then fitted out a marine police force, for we were not altoâ€" gether without expectation that the mind of the Government of the United. States might take a different direction, and that there was a probability of negotiations being re- newed respecting the revival of the Ilcci‘ procity Treaty, and therefore, although the system was established it was not rigidly put into force, and no great exertion was made to seize trespassers who had not taken out licenses.’ In the first year, however, a great number of licenses were taken out; but when the fee was increased so as to render it a sub- stantial recognition of our rights, the pay- ments became fewer and fewer, until at last it was found that the vessels which took out licenses were the exception, and that the great bulk of the fishermen who en- tered our waters were trespassers. In addition to the fact that our fisheries were invaded, that we were receiving no con- sideration for the liberty, and that our right: were invaded boldly and aggressively, it was now stated by the American Government, or members of the American Cabinet, that v the renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty was not only inexpedient but unconstitutional, and that no such renewal could or would be made. The Government of Canada then, in 1870, after conference with the Imperial Govern ment, and after receiving the promise of the Imperial Government that we should have the support of their fleet in the pro- tection of our just rights, a promise which was faithfully carried out, prepared and fitted out a sufficient force of marine police vessels to protect our rights, and I am glad to believe that that policy was perfectly successful. Great firmness was used, but at the same time great discretion. There was no harshness, and no seizures were made of a doubtful character. No desire to harass the foreign fishermen was evidenced, but on the _contrary, in any case in which there was doubt. the officers in command of the seizing vessels reported to the head of their department, and when the papers were laid before the Government they, in all cases, gave he offending parties the benefit of the doubt. Still, as it would be i remembered, seine of the fishermen made complaints, which complaints, although unjust, I amosorry to say, were in some instances, were made and supported on oath, of harshness on the part of the cruisers, and an attempt was made to agitate the public mind of Canada, and there was at that time a feeling on the part of a large por- tion of the people of Nova Scotia, which feel: ing, I am however happy to say, has since disappeared, that the action of Canada was unfriendly. Her'Majesty’s Govern- ment were, of course,- appealed to by the authorities of the United States on all these Americans fishing in those waters should not , to the licensing system. I termsâ€"so long as they were standin from each otherwitafi'ected very consi erany the credit of the United States securities in quence, that the Alabama. question should 3 be settled. (Cheers) Sir, England has pro- : mised to us, and we have all faith in that 1‘ promise, that in case of war the Whole force ‘ of the Empire shall be exerted in our de- ‘fcnce. (Cheers) \Vhat would have been the position of England, and What would have been the position of Canada, if she had been called upon to use her whole force to defend us when engaged in conflict elsewhere? Canada. would, as a matter of course, in case of war between England and the United States, he 'the battle ground. I‘Ve should be the sufferers. Our country would be de- ( vastated, our people slaughtered, and our property destroyed; and, while England would, I believe, under all circumstances faithfully perform her promise to the utmost (cheers), she would be greatly impeded in (carrying out her desire, if engaged else- where. It was therefore as much the interest of this Dominion as of Eng- land that the Alalama and all other questions that in any way threatened the dis- turbance of the peaceful relations between the two countries should be settled and ad- justed, and, therefore, although to a consi- derable extent I agree with the remarks that fell from the Minister of Finance when he made his budget speech, that, looking at the subject in a. ‘commercial point of View, it might have been better in the interest of Canada. that the Fishery and Fenian ques- tions should have been settled free and apart from the Imperial question, I am pleased, P 1 l l y 1 I l 1 1 l and I was eased, that the fact of Canada having asked England to make these de- mands upon the United States gave an op- portunity for rc-opening the negotiations with réspeet to the Alabama and other mat- ters. It was fortunate that We made that demand, for England could not with due self-respect have initiated or re-opened the Alabama question. She had concluded a treaty in London with the representative of the United States, and that treaty, havin r been rejected by the {supreme Executive 0 i he United States, F , 1r ’ . . . . ‘ ‘3! 5 119.1? we 4 ‘)a u. ’mands upon the Un r - - States, as it afforded the oppmtunity of , 11 these questions being made again the subject of negotiation. The correspondence which is before the House between the Secretary of State of the United States and the British Ambassador, Sir Edward Thornton, has shown how that re. sult was arrived at. As the invitation was made by the British Ambassador to consider the fishery question, the United States Go- vernment, I have no doubt, though I do not know it as a matter of fact, by a quiet and friendly understanding between the two powers, replied, acceding to the request, on condition that the larger and graver mat- ters of dispute were also made matters of negotiation. Hence it was, Sir, that the arrangements were made under Which the Treaty of \Vashington was effected. Sir, Ihave said that it was of the greatest consequence to Canada, and to the future peace and pros- perity of Canada, that every cloud which threatened the peace of England and the United States should be dispelled. I was struck with an expression that was used to me by a. distin guisth Enrrlish statesman, that those powers in Curope who are not so friendly to Eng- land heard with dismay that the entente cw- cliolc between the two nations was to be re- newed (hear, hear) ; and you have seen men- tioned in the public press the active exertions that were made by one power, or by the re- presentative of one power, for the purpose of preventing that happy result (hear, hear) ; and although M. Catacazy has been disa vowed by the Government of Russia in the same way as poor Vieovich was on a pre- vious occasion, when he was the organ of Russia in the East, I cannot but feel] that he was punished only because his zeal outran his discretion. I can vouch for his active exertions for the purpose of pre- venting this Treaty of Washington receiving the sanction of the Senate of the United States. (Hear, hear.) \Vhile England was strongly interested in the settlement of these questions, both for herself and for Canada, the United States were also interested, and made overtures in a most friendly s irit. I believethat there. was a rea desire among ‘the people, of the United States to be friendlyvtowards England. I believe that the feeling of irritation which had been caused by the unhappy events of the War, and by the escape of the Alabama, had al- most entirely disappeared, and I hope and believe that the people of the United States were then and are now stron 1y in'favour of establishing permanently a ‘endly feeling between the two nations. Then, besides, they had a further interest in settling all matters indispute ; for so long as the United States and England were not on friendly aloof been quite at liberty to have proceeded with the Commission and the settlement of all these questions without Canada being repre- sented on the Commission, and those very men who attack me now for having been there, and taken a certain course, would have been just as loud in their complaints, and just as bitter in their attacks, because I had neglected the interests of Canada, and refused the responsibility of asserting the rights of Canada at lVashington. (Cheers). Sir, knowing, as I said before, what the consequences would be to myself of ac- cepting that office, and foreseeing the attacks that would be made upon me, I addressed a letter to His Excellency the Governor-General, informing him of the great difficulties of my position, and that it was only from a sense of duty that I accepted the position. 0n proceeding to Washington I found a general desire among the two branches into which the Joint High Commission divided itselfâ€"an equal desire, I should say, on the part of the United States Commissioners as well as on that of the British Commissionersâ€"that all questions in dispute should be settled so far as the two Governments could do so. There was a special desire that thpre should be a settlement of every- thing. It was very easy for the Commis- sioners ortheGovernment through their repre- sentatives to make atreaty, but inthe United States there isapower above and beyond the Government: the Senate of the United States, which had to be considered. It was felt that a second rejection of a treaty that it would be a solcixln declaration that there was no peace-able solution of the ques- tions between the two nations. An American statesman said to me, “ the rcj ’ tion of the treaty now means war.” Not" tomorrow orrat any given period, bu whenever En land happens to be en la, in other trou lés and at .ed fr.” sources. ' ~ ‘ f . hna' ‘ unwise wit-gown}- - conceived opinions, _We . n (~ 113 destruction for ever of all hope for-fa able solution of the difficulties between kindred nations. (Hear.) Still, Sir, ‘ not forget that I was their chosen repres. . tative. I could not ignore the fact thatsf was selected as a member of that Commission from my acquaintance with Canadian POIll’IlL’n. I had continually before me not only the 1m. perial question but the interests of the Do- minion of Canada, which I was there specially to represent ; and the difficulty of my posi- tion was that if I gave undue prominence to the interests of Canada, I might justly be held in England to be taking a purely co- lonial and selfish view, regardless of the interests of the Empire as a whole, and the interests of Canada as a portion of the Empire; and, on the other hand, if I kept my eye solely on Imperial considerations, I might be held as neglecting my especial duty towards my country of Canada. It was a difficult position, as the House will be- lieve, a. position that pressed upon me with great weight and severity at the time, and it has not been diminishedin any way since I have returned, except by the cordial support of my colleagues, and I believe also, of my friends in this House. (Cheers). In order to show that I did not for a moment forget that I was there to represent the interests of Canada, I must ask you to look at the desâ€" pateh of the 16th February, 1871, which reached me at W'ashington a few days after I arrived there. It will be seen that Lord Kimberley used this expression :â€"“As at present ad- vised, Her Majesty’s Government are of opinion that the right of Canada to exclude Americans from fishing in the waters within the limit of three marine miles of the coast is beyond dispute, and can only be ceded for an adequate consideration. Should this con- sideration take the form of amoney piy- ment, it appears to Her Majesty’s Govern- ment that such an arrangement would be more likely to work well than if any condi- tions were annexed to the exercise of the privilege of fishing within the Canadian waters.” Having read that despatch, and the suggestion that an arrangement might be made on the basis of a money payment, and there being an absence of any statement that such an arrangement could only be made with the consent of Canada,” I thought it well to communicate ,with my colleagues at Ottawa; and, although we had received again and again assurances from Her Majesty’s Government that those rights would not be affected, given away or ceded without our consent, it was thought advisable, in consequence of the omission of all reference to the necessity of Canada’s assent being obtained to any monetary ar- rangement, to communicate b cable that Canada considered the Canadian sheries to be :ubiects. and m‘olaints Were bandied authorities of the United States on all these subjects, and complaints were bandied from one Government to the other, and proved a source of great irritation. \Vhile this feeling was being raised in the United States there was, on the other hand, a feelâ€" ing among our fishermen that‘ our rights were, toa very great degree, 11:1Vilqu. In order to avoid the possibility of (115])11130‘111 order to avoid any appearance of liarshnessi- in order, while we were supporting 1 our fishery rights, to prevent any case of collision between the Imperial Government and the United States, or between the Cana- dianauthorities and the United States, we avoided making seizures within the bays or in any way bringing up the headland ques- tion. This was very unsatisfactory, be- cause, as it was said by the fishermen, “ if we have these rights we should be pro- tected in the exercise of them,” and it was therefore well that that ques- tion should be settled at once and for ever. In addition, hOWever, to the question of headlauds a new one had arisen of an exceedingly unpleasant nature. By the wording of the Convention of 1818, foreign fishermen were only allowed to enter our waters for the purposes of procuring wood, water and shelter; but they claimed that they had a right, although fishing vessels, to enter our ports for trading purposes, and it was a1» leged by our own fishermen that, under pre- tence of trading, American fishermen were in the habit of invading our fishing grounds and fishing in our waters. The Canadian Government thought it therefore well to press, not only by correspondence, but by a delegate, who was a member of the Govern- ment, upon her Majesty’s Government, the pro iriety of having that question sctt ed with the United States, and, consequently, my friend and colleague the Postmaster-General went to England to deal with that subject. The results of his mission are before Parliament. At the same time that he dealt with the question I have just mentioned, he forced upon the consider- ation of Her Majesty’s Government the pro- priety of England making on our behalf 3. for reparation for the wrongs known as the “Fenian raids. ” England agreed to press upon the United States both these matters, and to ask that all the disputed questions relating to the inâ€"shore fisheries, under the Conven- tion of 1818, should be settled in some mode to be agreed upon between the two nations, and also to press upon the United States the wrongs sustained. by Canada at the hands of citizens of the U ited States who had in- vaded our country. Before Her Majesty’s Government had actually, in compliance with their promise, made any representation on these two subjects to the United States Government, Englal’ 1 had been engaged on her own behalf a. controversy of a The House is aw-‘re mnmflv knnwn. mu. -1; countries, involving th gravest cont tip-i ' es, aiv1 that, hithertofi_ IN results had bb‘efi most unsatisfactory. An _at- . tempt had been made to settle the question by what was known as the J ohnson-Clarendon 'l‘reaty, but that treaty had been rejected by the United States authorities. So long as this question remained unsettled between the two nations there was 'no possibility of the old friendly relations that had so long existed between them fieing restored, and England felt that it was of the first importance to her that those amicable relations should be re- , stored. It was not only her desire to be in , the most friendly position towards a country which was so closely associated with her by every tie, by common origin, by common in- terest, by common language, but it was also her interest to have every cloud removed be~ tween the two nations, because she had rca« son to feel that her position with rc‘ spect to the other great powers of the world was greatly affected by the know- ledge which those other nations had ‘ of the position of affairs between = I Great Britain as a great power was affected 'i Now, Sir, let me enter into a short retrospect of the occurrences which transpired some j years before arrangements were entered into , for negotiating the Treaty. The fleeiprocity } Treaty with the United States existed from ( 1854 to 1866, in which latter year it expired. 1 Great exertions were made by the Government 1 of Canada and a. great des1rewas expressed by ( comp I i f 1 I the Parliament and people of Canada, for a. 1 some of the conflicting powers; and she e tA , renewal of that Treaty. worked very beneficially for Canada. It was felt to have Worked also to the advantage of the United States, and there was 'a desire , and a feeling that those growing interests . which had been constantly develop- ing and increasing themselves during the existence of the Treaty would be greatly aided if it were renewed and continued. I was a member of the Govern- ment at that time, with some of my hon. fiends who are still my colleagues; and we took every step in our power, we spared no effort, we left no stone unturned, in order to gain that object. The House will remember that for the purpose of either effecting a re- newal of the Treaty, or, if we could not ob- tain that, of arriving at the same object by means of concurrent legislation, my hon. friend, the member for Sherbr'oke (Hon. Sir " werrliale between the two nations. Two years ‘ ‘ greatly interested in the great and serious It was felt to have 1 most seriously by the absence of an Cult/12ft? ago England was, as a matter of course, , questions which were thenconvulsingEurope, . and was in danger of being drawn by some i lication into the hostile relations of . 5 and I speak merely what must be obvious to i “ every hon. member in the HouseTâ€"that she ( could not press or assert her opinion With ‘ the same freedom of action so long as she was aware, and so long as other nations were ‘ i aware, that, in case she should be unfortu- . nater placed in a state of hostility With any j nation whatever, the United States Govern- ment would be forced by the United States people to press, at the very time when she might be engaged in mortal conflict With ' another nation, for a settlementof those Ala- bama. claims. Hence, Mr. Speaker, the great desire of England, in my opinion, that that , great question should be settled, ‘and hence, 1 also, the intermingling of the particular ques- i tions relating to Canada_with the larger Im- j perial questions. And, Sir, in my opinion it was of greater consequence to Canada than Euro e. the United'States andherself. The presiigeof , 1 Not only the funds of the United E116 c 'euln 0]. but: {Hunter gamma accuiivina in Europe. Not only the funds of the United States as a whole, but the securities of every State of the Union, and of all American enterprises seeking the markets of the world were injuriously affected by the unsatisfac- tory relations between the two countries. They were, therefore, prepared to meet each other in this negotiat10n._ To proceed with the history of the circum- stances immediately preceding the formation of the Joint High Connnission at \Vashington, I will state that on the let of February, 1871, a communication was made to me by His Excellency the Governor-General on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, asking me, in case there was going to be a Joint Commis- sion to settle all questions between England and the United States, Whether I would act as a member of that Commission. I give the date because it has been asked for. The communication was 'verbal and founded upon telegraphic communication to His Excellency which cannot be presented ; and being of a nature which the House can readin understand ought not properly to be laid before this House. This communi- cation was, in the first place, for my- self alone. I was not allowed to mention it for the time to any one else. My reply was that I would be greatly embarrassed by any injunction of secrecy as regards my colleagues, and that under no circumstances would I accept the po- sition Without their consent. I subsequently received permission to communicate it to them, and I received their consent to act upon the Commission. Before accepting, however, I took occasion, for my own infor- mation and satisfaction, to ask through His Excellency what points of agreement and of difference existed between Eng- land and Canada with regard to the fish- eries. The answer was a very short one by cable, and it was satisfactory to myself. It was extended in the despatch of the 16th February, 1871. It shortly stated that of course it was impossible for Her Majesty’s Government to pledge themselves to any foregone conclusion; that it was a matter for negotiation, and it was of course out of the question on the part of either Gov- ernment to give cast-iron instructionsto their representatives, because that would do away with every idea of a negotiation. The despatch went on' to say that Her Majesty’s Government considered 0 ur right to the inshore fisheries beyond dispute; that they also believed that our claims as to the headlands were just, but that those claims might properly be a matter of compromise. It went on fur- ther to state that Her Majesty’s Government believed that, as amatter of strict right, we coulil 'v 5 do the American fi hermen entering ' _ trade and commerc ' ~ - "r our wa“ ~ . tie treaty, and’ 1;. j V ‘ 'ject for compromigo A ‘reading despateh I could Have no iffieulty as a member of the Canadian Govel'nment in ac- Q‘ cor ' circumstafibes‘fifh’atever,‘ eerie. se 1 her property, and they could not be disposed ' would be most 1 disastrous for the future of both nations; ‘ l among the [it-ed States Commissioners, but among the ' blic men of the United States Whom they _t there, and from their communicatio_ with other sources of 1 information, tli t the feeling was universal that all questi is should be settled beyond. more especiall solution of th eries could be arrangement question could- that, if by any possibility a. ifliculty respecting the fish- ved at, or a satisfactory 'ade by which the fishery . placed in abeyanee as in. 1854, it would I to the advanta e of both nations. Itm st be-remembere that the Commission sa in 1,871, and that the exclu» . sum of Amerie n fishermen from our waters was enforced ' .lggpt up during the whole of 1870, and "great and loud, though I believe unfoun complaints hadbeen made that American filling vessels had been il- legally seized .‘although they had not trespassed u ._ our - waters. Persons interested h ' been using every ef- fort to arouse nd stimulate the public mind of th United States and the people of th, -. United States against Canada and thcl Canadian authori- ties; and it 1 is, felt and expressed that it would be ' “t bar to thechance of the Treaty b at:le by the United States if one 0 causes of irritation which had been 0 gga few 'lmoiiths before should be allo to remain unsettled. Col- lisions would 0 . .betwee Amman-fisher:- men'claimnig , V ' V I xCanadians resisting those 7 V . red- 19 , .. or land of exactly “.s .‘that‘ of 1854,- so the e a the s l bri = _ ' Lom.A~,i(111§3rS, believing that a treaty sum “ to that of 1854 could 'not be obtai ed in‘ words 'and in' detail, thought fiat it might be obtained in spirit, and this fiew was strongly 'pressed upon the Joint r cmmission. This will ap: pear from the a. tocol. It will also appear from the proto :1} that the United States Commissioner : uted? that a Reciprocity I Treaty was i j’ of. the question; that it could not be . epted without being sub- mitted to bothb r ’ ches of Congress; thatthere was not the slig, test possibility of Congress passing such an - ; that the agreement by the two Govenirneuts-tpva Treaty including provisions simi' spirit to the Treaty of 1854 would on] - nsure the rejection of that Treaty by the 'ate ; and, therefore, that some other solu 4611 must be found. I believe that the U ' iStates Commissioners were candid and ~ ‘ :7 accurate in their view of the situatio :11 believe that had the Treaty contain p 11 the provisions or the essential provisimis of the Treaty of 1854 they would have ensured its rejection by the Senate. \Vhenél speak of the Conferences that were held on the fishei'ies, I would state for the information of those members of the House whomay be unacquainted with the usage in such matters, that the Com- missioners did not act at the discussion indi- vidually. TheConference was composed of two units~the§31itish Commission and the United States «Commission. If a question arose in conference on which either of the two parties, the British or American branch, desired to consult together they retired, and on their return expressed their views as a whole without reference to the individual opinions of the Commissioners. As an indi- vidual member (if the British Commission, and on behalf of Canada, when it was found that we could not obtain a renewal of the Reciprocity Treaty, I urged upon my Eng- lish colleagues that the Canadians should be allowed to retain the exclusive enjoyment of the inshore fisheries, and that means should be used- to arrive in some way or other at a settlement of the dis uted question in rela- tioiqifito the fisheries, o tosettle the headland queStiofi‘ and thebther one in relating to trad- ing in our ports by Am'erican fishermen; andI would have been well satisfied, acting on be- half of the Canadian G overnment, if that course had been adoptél by the Imperial Govern- ment ; but Her h‘afajesty’s Government felt, and so instructed 'their Commissioners, and. it was sofclt, by the United Stat-es Commis- sioners, that the leaving of the chance of 5 H :9- m of Without her consent. That communiqation no. ,--r.-.._,, ___.. . d of without her consent. That communication was made by the Canadian Government on the 10th of March, and of that Government I was so amember ; and not onlydidthat comâ€" munication proceed from the Canadian Gov- ernment to England, giving them fair notice that the Canadian Government, of which I was amember, would insist upon the right of dealing with her own fisheries, but I took occasion to press upon the head of the British Commission at “'ashington, that my own individual opinion, as representing Canada, should be laid before Her Majesty’s Government. The answer that came back ' at once by cable was extended in full in the despatch of the 17th March, 1871, and it was most satisfactory, as it stated that Her Majesty’s Government had never any intention of advising Her Majesty to part with those fisheries Without the consent of Canada. Armed with this I felt that I was relieved of a conside- rable amount of . embarrassment. I felt that, no matter what arrangements might be made, no matter whefhe: I was outvoted by my colleagues on the Com- mission, or what instructions might be given by Her Majesty’s Government, the interests of Canada were safe, because they were in her own hands and reserved for her own de~ cision. Now, Mr. Speaker, it must not ' be supposed that this was not a substantial con- cession on the part of Her Majesty’s Govern- ment. It is true that Lord Kimberley stated, in his dcspatch of 17th March, that, when the Reciprocity Treaty was concluded, the Acts of the Nova Scotia and New Bruns- wick Legislatures relating to the fisheries were suspended by Acts of those Legisla- tures, and that the fishery rights of Canada were now under the protection of a. Canadian Act of Parliament, the repeal of which would be necessary in case of the cession of those rights to any foreign power. It is true in one sense of the word; but it is also true'that if Her Majesty, in the exercise of herpowers, had chosen to make a Treaty with the United States, ceding not only those rights, but ceding the very land over which those waters flow, that the Treaty between England and the United States would have been obliga- tory and binding, and the United States would liaveheld England to it. No matter how unjust to Canada after all her promises, still that Treaty would be a valid and oblioratory Treaty between England and the United States, and the latter would have the right to enforce its provision, over-ride any Provincial laws or ordinances, and take pos- session of our waters and rights. It would have been a. great wrong,but the consequence would have been the loss practically o ' 0 r rights for ever; and so it was satisfact ~ ' that it should be settled,as it has been‘se’ttl beyond a doubtr " 'Of Conference at with' I 'nsent of Canada;\so that,‘ V cepting the position to which my colleagues as- sented of plenipotentiary to Washington. 1) cause, as a matter of law, our View ' those three points was acknowledc I to be correct, and the subject was therefore devoid of any embarrassment from the fact of Canadians setting up pretensions which Her Majesty’s Government could not sup- port. (Hear, hear.) \Vhen the proposition was first made to me, I felt considerable embarrassment and great reluctance to become a member of the Commission. I pointed out to my colleagues that I was to be one of five; that I was in a posiâ€" tion of being overruled continually in our discussions and that I could not by any possibility bring due weight from my isolated position. I felt also that I would not receive from those who were poli- tically opposed to me in Canada that sup- iort which an officer going abroad on behalf of his country generally received and had a right to expect. (Hear, hear.) I knew that Iwould be made a mark of attack, and this House well knows that my anticipations have been verified. I knew that I would not get fair play. (Hear, hear.) I knew that the same policy that had been carried out towards me for years and years would continue, and therefore it was a matter of grave consideration for myself, whether to accept the ap- pointment or not. In that position, Sir, asense of duty prevailed (cheers), and my colleagues pressed upon me also that I would be wanting in my duty to my country if I declined the appointmentâ€"that if, from a fear of the consequences, from a fear that I would sacrifice the position I held in the opinion of the people of Canada, I should shirk the duty, I would be unworthy of the confidence that I had received so long from a large portion of the people of Canada. (Cheers) “Wha ,” said my colleagues, “ would be said, if, in consequence of your refusal, Canada was not represented, and her interest in these matters allowed to 5 goby default?” England, after having of- ‘ fered that position to the first Minister, and ‘to England, at least as a great consef ' the lights of Canada will be respected, as it Mangement between Canada '. ‘England, or England and the United' Stat- . 'is conceded. beyond dispute that En land has not the power to deprive Canada of t rein,- so that we may rest certain that, for all time to come, England will not, without our consent, make any cession of interests. Now, Mr. Speaker, to come to the mode of treating the various subjects which interest Canada more particularly, I will address myself to them in detail; and, first, I will consider the question of most importance to us, the one on which we are now specially asked to legislate, that which interests Canada as a whole most particularly, and which interests the Maratime Provinces especiallyâ€"~I mean the articles of the Treaty with respect to our fishery rights. I would, in the first place, say that the protocols which accompany the Treaty, and which are in the hands of every member, do not give, chronologically, an every day account of the transactions of the Conference. Although, as a general rule, I believe the protocols of such conferences are kept from day to day, it was thought better to depart from the rule on this occasion, and torecord only the conclusions arrived at. While the protocols substantially contain the re- sult of the negotiations ending in the Treaty, they must therefore not be looked upon as chronological dates of the faats and inci- dents as they occurred. 1 say so because the protocol which relates more especially to the fisheries would lead one to suppose that at the first meeting, and without previous dis- cussion, the British Commissioners stated “ that they were prepared to discuss the question of the fisheries either in detail or generally, so as either to enter into an ex- amination of the respective rights of the two cneral law of nations, or to approach at once the settlement of the question on a com- prehensive basis.” Now, the fact is, that it was found by the British Commissioners, when they arrived at Washington and had those ’l’States freeof (111 v . countries under the Treaty of 1818 and the I collision between the American fishermen collision between the American fishermen and the Canadian authorities a matter of poseibilitywould destroy or greatly prejudice the great object of the negotiations that were to restore the amicable relations ,and the friendly feeling between the two nations; and therefore Her Majesty’s Government pressed that these questions should be allowed to remain in abeyance, and that some other set- tlement in the way of compensation to Ca-I nada should be formed. The protocol shows, Mr. Speaker, that the United States Government, through their Commissioners, madea considerable advance, or at least some advance, in the direction of recipro- city, because they offered to exchange for our inshore fisheries, in the first place, the right to fish in their waters, whatever that might be worth; and they offered to admit Canadian coal, salt, fish, and, after 1874,1um- ber, free of duty. They offered reciprocity in these articles. On behalf of Ca- nada, the British Commissioners said that they did not '- consider that that was a fair equivalent. (Hear, hear.) It is not necessary that I should enter into all the discussions and arguments on that point, but it was pointed out by the British Commissioners that already a measure had passed one branch of the Legislature of the United States making coal and salt free and stood ready to be passed by the other branch, the Senate. It was believed at that time that the American Cdngrcss for its own purpose and in the interest of American people was about to take the duty off these articles, and therefore the Com- mission could not be fairly considered as in any way a compensation, as Congress a was going to take off the duty whether there was a. Treaty or not. Then as regards the duty on lumber, which was offered to to be taken off after1874,we pointedout that nearly a third of the whole of the time for which the Treaty was proposed to exist would expire before the duty would be taken off our lum- ber. The British Commissioners urged that that under those circumstances the offer could not be considered as a fair one and that Canada had a fair right to demand compen- sation over and above these proposed recipr0~ cal arraiigementfz’. Now, Mr. Speaker, be- fore that proposition was made, Iwas in communicatioiuq-ith my colleagues in the Ca- vM'f” V01“ t ~Who were exceedingly AIKEN}, 1’1» 'nal object should be carp-911; fl”: ‘ «at Reciprocity 21S W3.“ i . ould. be allowed to ret" hat the questions in” ’&4‘J~.l)llt He! ’13,. ' hem?“ - ,. ound whirl l and then on the 17th April‘the AmeriCan Com- I withdraw the offer altogether? One of. the (Commissmners in conversation said to me, i that has sprung up to the admission of Ca- . nadian coal and salt into our market ; I was unprepared for the feeling that is exhibitm‘ .” A“: _ i inonopolizers having the control of American coal in Pennsylvania and salt in New York, missioners withdrew their ofl'erâ€"‘as they had the rightto (loâ€"altogether. And whydid they the possibility ,I dispute in the future; and l “I am quite surprised to find the opposition I know right well what the reason was. The so long as the Treaty would open to them products, were quite willing that it should carry, because they would have the advan- tageof both markets; but when the duty was taken off in Canada, when you had opened jthe market to them, when they had the Wholecontrol of their own market, and free access to ours, whether for coal or salt, the monopolizers brought down all their energies upon their friends in Congress, and through themapressure on the American Govern- ment, for the purpose of preventing the ad- mission of Canadian coal and salt into the American market, and from that I have no doubt arose the withdrawal by the American Commissionersof their offer. When my hon. friend. from Bothwell (Mr. Mills) said last, session: “ There goes the Canadian national policy 1” he little was aware of the con- sequences of the reckless course he had taken. (Hear, hear, and laughter.) Hon. gentlemen may laugh, but they will i find it no laughing matter. The people of jthe market in Canada for their j 4‘ account. hosehvhe acted so unpatriotically in Mr.” Speaker - felt American -ffery .‘ ' ch ‘cireumstancés, ' he s er- . agree ’that it tted to Her say what should be done, ,as tacol: ‘~£’.l3he’subject was fu the conferences eprril 1‘ the last proposal to their Government and received instructions to accept the Treaty, articles 18 to 25 were agreed to at the con- ference on the 22nd April.” a‘portion of the Treaty. One of these articles reserves to Canada the right of re- jection or adoption, and it is for this Parlia- ment now to say circumstances it shall ratify or reject them. The papers that have been laid be- fore the House show what was the op- inion of the Canadian Government. Under the present circumstances of that ques- tion, the Canadian Government believe that it is for the interest of Canada to accept the Treaty, to ratify it by legislation. (Hear, hear.) They believe it is for the interest of Canada to accept it, and they are more in» clined to believe it from the fact which I must say has surprised me, and surprised my colleagues, and has surprised tlie‘countryâ€"that the portion of the Treaty which was supposed to be most unpopular and most prejudicial to the in- terests 0f the Maritime Provinces has proved to be the least unpopular. (Hear, hear.) Sir, I could not have anticipated that the Canadian fishermen, who, to a man, were opposed to the Treaty as inflicting upon them a wrong, would now be recon to it. I could not have anticipated that the fishermen of the Maritime Provinces, who, at first expressed hostility, would now, With a few exceptions, be aIiXious for its adoption. (Hear, hear.) In reviewing these articles of the Treaty, 1 would call the consideration of the House to the fact that their scope and aim have been greatly misrepresented by that portion of the Canadian press which is opposed to the present Government. It has been alleged to be an ignomiiiious sale of the property of Canada, a bartering away of the territorial ricrhts of this country for money. Sir, that alIegation could not be moreutterly unfound- ed than it is. (Hear, hour). It is no more a transfer and sale of the territorial rights of Canada than was theT reaty of 1854. The very basis of 121 i.Treaty is reciprocity. (Hear, hear). To be sure it does not go so far and embrace so many articles as the Treaty of 1854. I am sorry for it. I fought hard that it should be so, but the terms of this Treaty are terms of reciprocity, and the very first clause ought 130-1 be sufficient evidence upon thatpoint, for it declares that Canadians shall have the same right. to fish in American waters that Americans will have under the Treaty to fish in Canadian 1 to the American market and thus he the Waters. ‘ True, it may be said that our fish- eries are more valuable than theirs but that cries are more valuable than their , Dull that does not affect the principle. The principle is thisâ€"that we were trying to make a reci- procity arrangement and going as far in the direction of reciprocity as possible, endeav- ouring to carry outa reeiprocitylaw although not a reciprocity treaty in form. The prin- ciple is the same in each case, and as. regards the Treaty that has been negotiated it is not confined to reciprocity in fish. It provides that the products of the fisheries of the two nations, fish oil as well as fish, shall be in- terchanged free. The only symptom of deâ€" parture from that principle is that if it were found that Canada had made a bad bargain and had not received a fair compensation for what she gave; if it were found that while there was 1‘0011)l'0<:ity as to the enjoyment of rights and privileges, there was not true reciprocity in value, pro- vision should be made by which the differ- ence in value should be ascertained and paid to this country. (Hear, hear.) Now, if there is anything approaching to the dishon- ourable and the degrading in these proposals, 1 do not know the meaning of those terms. (Hear, hear.) This provision may not be one that will meet the acceptance of the country, but I say that the manner in which it has been characterized was a wilful and deliberate use of language which the parties employing it did not believe at the time to be accurate, and to which they resorted for political reasons and in order to create misapprehensions in the country. Sir, there was no humiliation. Canada would not tolerate an act of humiliation on the part of its Government; and England would neither advise nor permit one of her faithful colonies to be degraded and cast down. (Cheers). But it is said that the American fisheries are of no value to us. They are not very valuable, it is true, but still they have a substantial value for us in this wayâ€"that the exclusion of Canadian fishermen from the American coast fisheries would have been a great loss to the fishing interests of the Mar- itime Provinces, and I will tell you why. It is quite true that the mackerel fishery, which is the most valuable fishery on these coasts, belongs to Canada, and that the mackerel of the American coast is far inferior in every respect to the Canadians, but it is also true that in American waters, the Inenhadden, the favourite bait to catch the mackerel, is found, and it is so much the favourite bait that one fishing vessel having this bait on board will draw away a whole school of mackerel in the very face of vessels having an inferior bait. Now, the value of the privi. lege of entering American waters for catching that bait is very great. If Canadian fisher- men were excluded from American waters be ‘ni ed mat > an ‘7. _ .. - ' g a Treaty in in t r _: umber from szinada u »' ved into the United (Hear, hear.) I have reason to believe that had it not been for the inter- position of this Legislature, and I speak now of political friends as Well as fees, the terms which were offered by the United States would have been the compensation to have been settled by arbitration, and would have constituted a. portion of the Treaty instead of as it is now. (Applause) I will tell the House why I say so. The offer was made early by the United States Government. The answer made by the British Commissioners was that, under the circumstances, it was not a fair and adequate compensation for the privileges that were asked, and the British Commissioners, at the suggestion of the Canadian Government, re- ferred the question to Her Majesty’s Govern» ment whether they ought notiin addition to this ofl'er of the United States‘to expect a pecuniary ebmpcnsation, that pecuniary compensation to be settled in some way or other. That took place on the 25th March, 1871. On the 25th of March I think the final proposition was made by the United States Government, and on the 22nd March, two days before, the resolution was carried in this House, by which the i duty was taken off coal and salt and the other articles mentioned. Before that reso- lution was carried here, no feeling was ex- pressed against the taking off of the duty on Canadian coal and salt into the United States. : No one raised any difficulty about it. I am as well satisfied as I can be of a. thing which I did not see occur, that the admission of Canadian coal and salt into the United States would have been placed in the Treaty if it had not been for the action of this Legis- lation on the 25th March. (Hear, hear.) That ‘ offer was made, and it was referred to Eng- land. The Government stated that they quite had an opportunity of ascertaining the feel-’ ing that prevailed at that time, not only it having been refused. by him, would have byany combination among American fisher- lr‘nm‘ i ‘ , any Act of Congress, they would ‘edpf getting a single ouii ‘ *2 ’ in. -~ ters to ‘prc ‘ . e of tl t is that 116 su _.combination _c ex 1;, ‘d Canadians can purchase [the bait able to fish that l on equal terms ‘ 3.:Amé.picans. .» egr‘sf‘flHear, hear.) It is thus seen, at this 1a. V be passing Reciprocity Treaty is not a mere tter of sentimentâ€"it is _ which is not to be neglected, or despised, or sneered at. W'ith respect to the language of these articles, some questions have been rais- ed and placed on the paper, and I have asked the hon. gentlemen who were about to put them to postpone doing so, and I now warn hon. members? and I do it with the most sin- cere desire to protect and vindicate the inter- ests of Canadaâ€"if this Treaty becomes a Treaty, and we ratify the fishery articles, I warn them not to raise questions which other- wise might not be raised. 1 think, Mr. Speaker, there is no greater instance in which a wise (liScretion can be used than in not sug- gesting any doubt. With respect, however, to the question which was put by the hon. member for the county of Charlotteâ€"and it is a question which might well bequit, and which requires seine answer ~ I would state to that hon. gentleman, and I think he will be satisfied with the answer, that the Treaty of 1871 in the matter his ques- tion refers to, is larger and wider in its provisions in favour of Canada than was the Treaty of 1854, and that under the Treaty 'of 1854 no question was raised as to the exactlocalityofthe catch, but all fishbrought to the United States market by Canadian vessels were free. I say this adviscdly, and I will discuss it with the hon. gentleman Whenever he may choose to give me the op- portunity. The same practice will, I have no doubt, be continued under the Treaty of 1871, unless the people of Canada themselves raise the ‘objcction. The warning I have just new expre . am sure the House will take in the spirit in which it is intended. No hon. will, of course, ercising his own discretion, but I felt it my duty to call the attention of the not raising needlessly doubts as to terms of the Treaty. j agreed in the opinionthat in addition to that that we have not given all our fisheries away. "the matter"; (Hear, hear.) .«Enderxthese' a most valuable privilege, cd I I be prevented from ex-- . Canada, bothhea‘st‘ and west,hvillhclgl to strict. Majesty’s GOV‘ articles, n by the last sentence cf the“ 191‘0- discusfiilg‘ th 1 adiamtagES ‘ "'r diéi’nissed in ments because every word ’u’sedgby me may and 19th, and be quoted and. used as evidence against the British Commissmners having referred us hereafter. . The . This, then, it that it is one that can be accepted, one is occurred that these articles from 18 to 25 are obliged to run the risk of his language being whether under all the that in looking at the Treaty in a commercial l I { t l 3 who " the disputed question as to whether the con- . . member 3 constantly pressedeand we know the pertina- House to the necessity for great prudence in rence, which, while it was discussed from the , It will be remembered 1 then for ever between the! two nations, “as i revived by the Presideutof the United States the old British American Provinces, and 111' order that the area should not be1 widened, it is provided that it shall i oply apply to the fisheries of Quebec,‘ Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Prince ‘ Iidward Island ; so that he Treaty 1 does not allow .the Americans to havej access to the Pacific coast fisheries, nor yet i to the inexhaustible and priceless fisheries of 1 the Hudson Bay. These are great sources i of revenue yet undeveloped, but aftcrl the‘Treaty is ratified they will develops l rapidly; and in . twelve years from . new, when the two nations sit down to reconsider the circumstances and readjust the Treaty, it will be found. 1 that other and greater wealth will he? at the disposal of the Dominion. I may be , askedâ€"though I have not seen that theI pomt has excited any observationâ€"why were not the products of the lake fisheries laid open to both nations, and in reply may say that those~fisheries were excepted at nfy in- i stance. The Canadian fisheries on thei north 'shére of the great lakes are 3 most valuable. By a judicious system of pre- 1 servation and protection we have greatly in- l creased that source of wealth. It is also 1 known that from a concurrence of circum- stances and from situation, the fisheries‘ ,on the south shore are not nearly i .so valuable as ours, and it therefore 1 appeared that if we once allowed the Amerâ€" ican fishermen to have admission to our waters with their various engines .of destruc- tion, all thepeare taken for manyfyears to 0111- ' tivate thatlsoureerofl} wealth would be disc . turbed-and injured”- and really prejudiced, 21nd v- there" ' would. be no V end “of. 'quarigirls "and dissatisfaction in our narrow f e 4 N v ' ‘ CM lien. up“? shim T charge 'of, ‘ijuri‘ our own ‘7; _. ithe arrangeâ€"r I statenient has' been so thrown broadcast that the arrange- ment is a. bad one for Canada, that in order to show to this House and the country used before the Commissioners to settle the amount of compensation as an evidence of the value of the Treaty to us. It seems to me point of view, and looking at the question whether it is right to accept the articles, we have to consider mainly that interest which is most peculiarly afl'ected. New, unless I am greatly misinformed, the fishery inter- ests in N ova Scotia, with one or two exceptions for local reasons, are alto~ gether in favour of the Treaty. (Hear, hear.) They are anxious to get free admis- sion for their fish into the American market, that they would view with great sorrow any action of this House. which would exclude them from that market, that they look for- ward with increasing confidence . to a large development of their trade and of that great industry; and I say that that being the caseâ€" if it be to the interest of the fishermen and for the advantage ' of that branch of national industry Setting aside all other considerationsâ€"we ought‘ not wilfully to injure that interest. . - ‘thy, Sir, what is the fact of the case as it stands? The only ' market 5r the" Canadian No. 1 mackerel in the world is the United States. That is our only market and we are practically ex- cluded‘from it by the present duty. The consequence of that duty is that our fisher- men are at the mercy of the American fish- ermcn. They are made the hewers of wood v and the drawers of water for the Americans. They are obliged to sell their fish at the Americans’ own price. The American fishermen purchase their fish at a nominal value and control the Ame- rican market. The great profits of the trade are handed over to the American fishermen or theAmerican merchants engaged in thetrade, and they profit to the loss of our own indus- try and our own people. Let any one go down the St. Lawrence on a summer trip, as many of us do, and call from the deck of the steamer to a fisherman inhis boat and see fpr What a. nominal price you can secure the whole of his catch, and. that is from the absence of a market and from the fact of the Canadian fishermen being completely under the control of the foreigner. With the A duty. Off Canadian fish, the Canadian fisherman may send . his fish at the right time When he can obtain the best price means of opening a profitable trade with the United States in exchange, If, thgggfgrq, mic uni..ch Hum/cs if. mun...“ in, it is for the advantage of the Maritime Pro~ vinees, including that portion of Quebeel which is also largely interested in the fish- ; eries, that this Treaty should be ratified and j that this great market should be opened to them, on what ground should we deprive them of this right ? Is it not a selfish ar- gument that the fisheries can be used as a , lever in order to gain reciprocity in ’ flour, wheat' and other cereals? Are you to shut our fishermen out of this great mar ket in order that you may coerce the United 3 States into giving you an extension of the ‘ reciprocal principle? \Vhy, Mr. Speaker, if ‘ it were a valid argument it would be a selfish : no. What would be said by the people of 2 Ontario if the United States had offered, for their own purposes, to admit Canadian grains free and Nova Scotia had objected, sayingw - “ No, you shall not have that market ; you must be deprived of that market for ever unless we can take in our fish also. You must lose all that great advantage until we can get a market for our fish.” Apply the argument in this ,way and you will see how selfish it is. But the argument has no foundation, no basis if fact, and 1 will show this House why. In 1854, by a strict and rigid obser- vance of the principle of exclusion,theAmeri- canfishermcn were driven out of those waters. At that time the United States were free from debt, and they had a large capital in- vested in their fisheries. Our fisheries were " then in their infancy. They were a “feeble” people, just beginning as fishermen, with little capital and little skill, and their opera- tions were very restricted. I do not speak disparagingly, but in comparison with the fishermen of the United States there was an , absence of capital and skill. The United States were free from taxation; they had this capital and skill, and all they wanted ‘ was our Canadian waters in which to invest . that capital and exercise that skill. But‘ how is it altered? Now our fisheries are no lever by which to obtain reciprocity in grain. What do the United States care for our fisheries? The American fishermen are opposed to the Treaty. Those interested in the fisheries are sending petition after petition to the: United States Government and Congress, praying that the Treaty may be rejected. They say they do not want to come into our waters. The United States Government have gone- into this Treaty with every desire to settle all possible sources of difficulty. Their fishermen complain that they will suffer by it, but the United States Government desire to meet us face to face, hand to hand, heart to heart, to have an amica- ble settlement of disputes. They know that i that they ar [not making political friends or gaining p " ical stgength, beca se interests *6 ‘ v 5194'“)? ' rcagainst , . :v r.” w - v", /\ » â€" > 14:3 an i. U‘ r; . ‘ Whater and encourage 1;. _ w 'ch‘ dictatesthe agreeing to these particu- lar articles. If, then, Canada objects to the treaty the United States Government will sini- ply sayâ€"“ \Vell, if you do not like these ar- rangements,reject them; and the consequence be on your own head if this friendship so auspiciously commenced is at any time broken by unhappy collisions in your w. ters.” It being six o’clock Mr. Speaker left the chair. . equfikhngp A Di AFTER RECESS. Sir JOHN MACDONALD resumed his speech as follows : I am afraidlmust apologize to the House for the uninteresting manner in which I have laid the subject before the House so far. I was showing, as well as Icould, my opinion and my reasons for that opinion, ,1 that under the circumstances the Treaty, ; althouin it is not what we desire, and although it is not what I pressed for, ought to be accepted. I shall not pursue that branch of the subject to greater length, as , during the discussion of the measure I have 1 no doubtthatlshallhave again an opportunity ‘ to re-urge these and further views on the same subject, as they may occur to me, or as they may be elicited. I shall, however, call , the serious attention of the House, and‘ especially of those members of the House have given attention to the , question in dispute, as regards the validity of the several treaties betweui the United States and England, to the importance of this Treaty in this respect, that it sets at rest now and for ever vention of 1818 was not repealed and oblite- rated by the Treaty of 1854. This question, Mr. Speaker, is one that has occupied the attention of the United States jurists, and has be en the subject of serious and elaborate discus- sions. From in y point of view the pretension of the United States is erroneous, but it has been city with which such views are pressed by the United States ; we have an example in the case of the navigation of the River St. Law- 1822 to 1828, and was apparently settled , be set at rest for ever. ;in our waters. I the l,.'nited S, xes h: a After is . and man ' I quote 'writeis on this subject, 1 their own hands. v river was usd 5 " (if : ternational l: ' ferred to the dispute about ' . offer there should be compensation in money, The Treaty only applies to the fisheries of in his Address of 1870 and the difference be- j tween the point of view as pressed in 1828 by thf United States and that pressed in 1810, was shown by the result of the treatv. (Mr. l:}lake~Hcar, hear.) And, Sir, 'it was of great importance, in my point of View hat this question which has been so pressed by American jurists, and consrdering also the pertina- city With which such views are urged,sd:oul.l The question has been strongly put in the A maz'z’cmz. Law L’s- cmw of April, 1871, in an article understood to i have been written by Judge I’onicroy, a jurist 1 of standing in the United States, and that paper, I believe, expresses the real opinion of the writer, erroneous although I hold 11.. to be, and his candcur is shewn by this fact, as well as from the known standing of the man, that in one porâ€" tion of the art-ich he dcniolishes the claim of ihe American fishermen to the right to trade He proves in an able argmnent that the claim of the American fishermen to enter our harbours for any pur- pose other than wood, water, and shelter is without foundation. The view taken by that writer and others, and among them by a writer whose name Ido not know, but whose papers are very valuable from their abilityâ€"4311051 appeared in the" ' New York A'mionâ€"is this : the Treatv of 'â€" N") 7 w v 118.) was a frosty of peace, a settlement of a boundary, and a divxsion of country between two nations. The United States, contended . . . . , tnat__that Treaty was in 'force and is now In force, it was 'i Treaty respecting the bound- ary, and was not abrogated o; li'ectedb war of 1812. ‘- ‘ by the termaof that Tr to enter into ~11 on and to every ‘ 3v” Tiifusré-ie {is} 84:. - q " ‘ afiature tooltec inn. . . onesmxm recuires to b carefully studiedbefore it caii benfifiéfig 1 will not thérbfore trouble thgfi that argument, but I will read on" r-tw'o pas- sages to .w the general statement of the case. V . w, _ . “ ll (2 Shall nmvlnmun‘c whether the convention-0f . ,. . . ._ 1818 isan 03:1. Hg c in ct, an 1.11 not, what are the j rights of ninerican‘f lieinien ’under the Tree-Ly of heme-of 1783.” nee the expire tion of the Reprocin Treaty in ' ' ( ment, brth atlu re and in the ..t1xtCs, its 0111ch structions, y assumed tn" the come ion of 1810' is again Operauw in all its provisions. That the State Department at Washin "ten $11 1111 by its silence have admitted the correctness of flu.» assump“ ' ' h is equally opposed to principle and to authority is l'cnmrkahlc. We shall maintain the proposition mat the Treaty of Peace of 1783 is now in full force, that all limitations upon its cfiicierc‘: have becn’fi'euiode : mgr! at it is the onlv source and foundation of Ame ‘ ' its Within the North- Easfcrn Territoz i \ .ci’s. '0 we shall show, first, that the I the convention of 1815 have been removed ; and secondly, that n,‘ .11 of the Treaty of 1783 thus left Iree from the restx ms- oi‘ the subsequent compact, was not £1111" ated l)\ the war of 18113.” The writer thus concludes 2 , “Article 11". of the Treaty of 175:. therefore in the nature ('1 an e int». It created and conferâ€" red atone lflr f oroywrt)’, perfect in their nt ‘ the dominion over the All . 0 held by the inhabiu ml are to be exercised in Unaffected by the war of Under fly, American citizen‘ ' " ' he fish on such parts of the co" British fi ‘ ermcn use, and mend or V, of all other} Bri- V I 7 minionsgn America, and to dry and cure 11.41) in any the unsctt ‘ s, harbours, and crceksof Nova Scetia, the Mag .nen Islands and Lab- i'udor. f‘Tlie final conclusion thus rcrchcd is sustained by principle and by authority. We submit that it should be adopted by the Government of the United Stat-OS, thchasis of any furthernegotiationswith Great Britain.” ' this for the purpose of showmg that the: pretension was for- mally set up and elaborated by jurists of no mean standing or reputation, and therefore it is one of the merits of the Treaty that it forever sets the dispute at rest. The the very writers of whom I have sp. , admit that under this Treaty the claim is gone, because it is a formal admission by the United States Government that, under the convention of 1818, we had, on the 8th May, 1871, a pro- prietary right in these inshore fisheries, and this was so admitted, after the ques- tion had been raised in the UnitedStates,- that the ratification of the Treaty of 185.1 was equal in its effect to an abrogation of the convention of 1818. They agree by this Treaty to buy their entry into our .waters, and this is the ’strongcst proof that their argument could be no lonrrci‘ maintained. 5 ' " ‘ possible the payment of ‘i'cnt ‘ bya tenant is the strongest proof of hi ad- mission of the right of the landlord, so is the agreement to pay to Canada a f; 'r sum - as an equivalent for the use of our fisheries an acknmvledgment of the peri anent (ren- 1inuo Cc of our right. So 111 .th, for the poi'ion cf the Treaty “lion :2. sets the fisheries. I alluded, a few minutes ago, to the St. Lawrence. The surrender of the free navigation of the ltiver St. Lawrence in its natural state was resisted by Eng- land up to 1828. The claim was renewed by the present Government of the United States, and asserted in a message by the present President of the United States. ller )l'ajestyls Gevcrmnent, in the instruc- tions sent to her Ccmnii'ssioners, took the power and rosqionsibility in this matter into lt was a matter which we would not control. Being a matter of boundary between two nations affecting a river which forms the boundary between the limits of apart of the Empire and the limits of the United States, it is solely within the control of Her Majesty’s Government, and in the instructions to the pleuipotentiaries this language was user 4â€"“ Her Majesty’s Gov.- ernment are new willing to grant the free navigation of the St. Lawrence to the citizens of the United States on the same conditions and tells as are imposed onBritish subjects.” I need not :say, Sir, that, as a matter of sentiment, I regretted this ; but it was a matter of sentiment onl y. However, there could be no practical good to Canada in resisting the concession ; and there was no possible evil inflicted on Canada by the concession of the privilege of navigating that small piece of broken water between St. liegis and Montreal. In no way could it affect prejudicially the inter- csfs of (Emails, her trade or her coui~ incice. "v‘v'ithout the use of our canals the s. Up to Montreal the St. Lawrence is open, not only to the vessels of the United States, but to the vessels of the world. Canada. courts the trade and ships of the world, and it would have been most absurd to suppose that the ports of Que- bec and Montreal should be closed to Ameri- can shipping. No greater . evidence short actual war can he adduch of unfriendly relations than the fact of- the ports of a country being closed to the coimnercc of another. It never entered into the minds of any that our ports should be closed to the trade of the world in general or the United States in particular, no more than it would enter into the minds of the English to close the ports of Lonâ€" don or Liverpool, those ports whither the flags of every nation are invited and welcomed. (Cheer-s.) From the source of the St. Lawrence to St. Ilcgis the United States are part owners of the banks of the river, and by V well known principle of in- the water flowing betWeen » m1 ‘1; to both; and not 6 '1 ,r I ‘ I an r .v ’ ~ ‘ could ( 1 ‘ 110 n . (.‘auada or to it would not be \xUll to set this , at rest with the others, and make the c cession. This was the line taken by If... Majesty’s Goxeiinncnt, and which tllcv .ad a right to ta‘ ; and when some one writes my biography if I am ever thought worthy of having such an interesting document pre- parcdmand when, as a matter of history, the questions connected with this Treaty are up- held, i . will be found that upon this, as well did all ‘u‘“o-‘Lw ter of ‘6. fu then was v. ht “ml; 56‘ their .fi I as upon. every other point, I 1 could to protect the rights and claims of the Dominion. (Cheers. ) New, Sir, with respect to the right itself, 1 would call the attention of the House to the remarks of a distinguished l‘lnglish jurist upon the point. ] have read from the work of an American jurist, and I will now read some remarks of M r. I’liillimore, a standard English writer on int-ci'natioiuil law. “hat I am about to read “as written under the idea that the Ame..mns were claiming what would be of practical use to them. :H c was not aware that the dillicul of navigation were such that the coin:' on would be of no practical use. llc writes as follows :â€" “Crcat Britain 1m esscd the northern shores of the ‘ and of the l in its whole ox m. to the sen, .so the south in bank of the river from the lati- ' .. uni-111:: outh. The United ~ *ssrd the southern States p . of the lakes, and of the ‘4 .awrcur-c to the poi, about their northern ‘ boundai Tne<e two (low, mm “'Cl' tr .wzn (ls the St. 1 been in nion of flu, 111 ms- sippi, before the acquirition. u Louisiana and Florida. United States was ‘llljvlub'cd with vpi. They rc‘ of the Schcldt, of that i'iier, ci tllUll of (Uti- on $111.!) could he ppi for ('h ‘ Duicl) can: ' ' Ili'u'ify prob- I‘T (if t' murh the same respect to the nav' ation of fl in 17.34. and contended t in the en the fact of the banks liavi LUIl Lh finial labour was a much sir-m or said to exist in (he L‘usc of the In the mouths of the so. adjoin the 8st and the Suin, and 111 ably c l Treaty of West} rem-c differed l . the llll.‘ ised the iucvrtion of ihc stipulation in the ‘ that the 1 of the St. Law- lv from '(h of flu: min-1111., pi. pic of free nm' :xtiun mnbodied in .10 0 1f Vienna .‘pevtil ., the Rhine, the. Xerxes: the M re, the )1 ellc, the Mouse, and the Scheldt. But espee .1113' it \. urged, and with a force- uhicl it must have been difficult to parry, that the pres ‘ aim of the United States with res] em. to then-m1; on of the St. Lawrence was pi‘eclsclyof . the .. Underthe ’, 6’ , wig", \X , JG ouse with ,. ‘ the same nature as that which Great Britain had put 1 f_ wacd with respect to the navigation of the 1‘ ‘ Sljvpl,‘ when the mouth and lower Mshores of that were m the i rssion of another State, and of \vh. claim Great Hr tin had procured the reco-‘nit‘ou b the 'l‘rcatyof l' is in 1703. c A i y ” ’1 he prin l argument contained in the renly of Great Britain u .s that the liberty of passwc 1le oi c nation through the dominions of another “its accord- . l g to the doctrine of the most eminent. writérs upon Tm :ni‘ioual Law, a qualified occasional exception to the p. uount rights of propertv; that it was what these vi .ters called an imperfect", and not a perfect light; that the Treaty of Vienna did not sanction this hour of a natural right to the free passage (Her l rivcrsADut, on the contrary, the inference b that not being a natural right, it required to he established 1 by a mnl:euh'nn;fluif the right of p: .re once (*on- i cgded :n'iist hold good for other purp ibcsidcs those I 01 ti‘utlevni pear refer bestile purposes in time of war" I that thcl‘mfcd rates could not Consistently mare their claman principle Without being; prepared to a?»- ply that principle by way of reciprocity; in favour of llritisli subjtcw, to the na .11 of the .\ .1 .ppl :(ijzil the 1lluldsqili, to which ' might be had from .anzu :1 v an' cai'ria'" v ‘ ~' ' ‘ I > ' ‘ aha Ohio: se or h_ tne canals of l\cw link “ The I'nited Slates replied, that practicallvdlie St. Lguvrpnco w: s . it, and was subject to the some princvnlc. of law , . «1 that as .«vtr r 75- £1.10 aeces ‘orv to t. swhich the} unite and 1h r, ore the i'iuht Hf . 1}," them is common to all nations. so the St. nee connects with the ocean those great- inland 7. \l 1a ’esu hon ' shores of uhth the subivcts of I the1 United (ex and Great llritain both“ dwell ‘ fine, on ' same principle, the natural linli of the .‘L/ ‘ (c the natural link of 1110 _ , mt, must he cqu' luhlc for the purposes of pus« by both. The 1 c over land, which \\ al- pressi on the minds of the writers; on Inter- national Law, inti'in ' different from a passwre over water ; in the latter ), no dctrimentor II]- convenience can be sus 1 h the cmmtrv to which. it belongs. The tinc‘ of the .51 s cfiaced Vas soon 1;; made: the track of an army mavlea ) . riouémi" lastingmjurybehind. The United Stat . would ‘ sln‘mlt' from the application of the to . ogv with . to theimvigation of the ppi‘, and, s1" - ; - *nit an-‘hl. 1 the case of rivers ' 'e and dis 4 ‘mifs the same n’ a) . ' ‘ "Ti Civic fl'o'i the ‘ sources and utate‘sa v ‘ (f other ‘ , , great In”. v vay, and are l , it the produce of t‘m'vaa‘ mu _ 'r on'fhe‘lakcs above to the . , , », ~ccm difficult to eny that Great; efus‘al upon ti'ict law; but it ult to dairy fifiet, that in so (loia ain may ~ I; in q avigation e ground that she p \d a I in which the ppi ed on ‘Yier right to navigate the waters; on the ground that she possesses both banks of the St Lawrence where it dis- embogues itself into the sea, she denies to the L ited States th right of navi itiou,though about on f of the waters of Lakcso , rio, Erie, Huron and Superior, and the “hole of Lake Michigan through which the river flows, are the property of the . (1 States. “An li'nalish writer apon interi tix 21 law cannot ‘ but ex .33. hope that this slllllll u: ‘jus, which in” this cue approaches to sunuim hijariu may he volun- tarily abandoned by his country. Since the late revo‘ lutionlin the South American Provinces, by which the dominion of" Rosas was overthrown, there appears to be ' dreason to hope that the Sta‘ 5 of Paraguay, 130 , BucuesfiAyres, and Brazil, will open the River 1’s. *1 the navigation of the world.” On reading a report of a speech of my hon. friend the member for Lamb- ton on ihis subjectâ€"a very able and in- teresting speech, if he will allow me so to characterize itâ€"«I find that, in speaking of the navigation of Lake Michigan, he stated that that lake was as much a portion of the St. Lawrence as the river itself. I do not know under what principle my hon. friend made that statement, but those inland seas are sees, as in .h as the Black Sea is a sea and not a river. The lake is enclosed on all sides by United Stat/cl} territory. No portion of its shores belongs to‘,Canada, and England has no right by international law to claim its navigation. Sir, she'never has claimed it, for if my hon. friend will look into the matter I he will find - that these great lakes have ever been treated as inland seas, and, as. far as magnitude is concerned, they are worthy of being so treated. Although her Majesty’s Commissioners pressed that the navigation of Lake Michigan should be granted as an equivalent for the navigation of the St. Law- rence, the argument could not be based on the same footing, and we did not and could not pretend to have the same grounds. It is, however, of little moment whether Canada has 9. grant by treaty of the free nawgation of Lake Michigan or not, for the cities on the shores of that Lake would never consent to have their ports closed, and there is no fear in the world of our vessels being excluded from those ports. The \Vestern States, and especially those bordering on the great lakes, would resist this to the death ; and I wonid like to see :1. Congress that would venture to close the ports of Lake Michigan to the shipping of 1England, or of Canada, or of the world. The small port-ion of the St. Laurence which ' lies betvieen the ~ 1 mints I have mentioned would be of no . an 2 tnere 2is no advantage tobe obtained therefrom as a lever to obtain reciprocity. Mr. MAle liNZIEfflIear. hear). Sir JOHN MACDOVALD#My hon. friend says “ hear, hear ;” but I will tell him that the only lever for the obtaining of reciprocity is the sole‘control of our canals.~ So long as we have the control of these canals we are the masters, and can do just as we please. American vessels on the down trip can run the rapids, if they get a strong Indian to steer them ; but they will nevercome back again unless Canadachooses. (Hear, hear.) The keel drives through these waters and then the mark disappears forever, and that vessel will be forever absent from the place that once knew it unless by the consent of Canada. Therefore, as I pointed out before the recess, as we had no lever in ourfishcries to get reciprocity, so we had none in the navigation of the. St. Lawrence in its natural course. The real substantial means to obtain reciprocal trade with the United Statesis in the canals, and is expressly stated in the Treaty; and when theTrcaty, in clause ' 27, which relates to thecanals, usesthewords 2 “The Govern ment of ller Britannic I\la« jesty engages to urge upon the Coverinncnt of the Dominion of Canada to secure to the citizens of the United States the use of the \Velland, St. Lawrence and other canals in the Dominion on terms of equality,” &c., it contains an admission by the United Statesve and it is of some advantage to have that ad- missionewthat the canals are our own prop- erty, which we can open to the United States as we please. The reason why this ad- mission is important is this 2 “Article twenty- six provides that the navigation of the River St. Lawrence ascending and descending from the 45th parallel of north latitude, where it ceases to form the boundary between the two countries, from, to, and into the sea, shall for ever remain free and open for the pur- poses of commerce to the citizens of the United States, subject to any laws and regulations of Great Britain or of the Dominion of Canada not inconsistent with such privileges of free navigation.” Therefore les it might be argued that as at the time the Treaty was made it was known that for the purpose of ascent the rivercould not be overcome in its natural course, the provision granting the right of ascent must be held to include the navigation of the canals through which alone the asecnt could be made. And so the next clause provides and spech' as that these canals are specially within the control of Canada and the Can..- dian Government, and prevents any infer- ence being drawn from the language of the preceding article. I know, Sir, that there has been in some of the newspapc ‘5 a sneer cast upon the latter para- graph of that Article, which gives the United States the free use of the St. Lawrenceâ€" 1 refer to that part of the art' le which gives the Canadi is 3‘58; free navigation of the rivers Y1 mail) I ‘ line and St SW“ 1 1 . sa,’ 1 my hon. fr . 6K , Yiikonisagrowing.. the Americans are neisendmg ess arejfitting outsteamers for the -zavigna' » I'll/con. I will tell my hon. friend I ’ c this moment United States vessels are going up that riv er, .and are underselling the Hud- son’s Bay people in their own country (hear, hear), and it is a matter of the very greatest importance to the western country that the navigation of these rivers should be open to the commerce of British subjects, and that access should be had by inc-ans of these rivers, so that there is no necessity at all for the ironical cheer of my hon. friend. Sir, I am not unaware that under an old Treaty entered into betu'ccnllussia and England, the former granted to the latter the free naviga- tion of these streams and the free naviga- tion of all the streams in Alaska, but that was a ’l‘i‘eaty between Russia and England, and although it may be argued by lingland that when the United States bought that ter- ritory from Russia, it took it with all its obligations, Mr. Speaker, there are two sides to that question. The United States, I venture to say, would hang an argument upon it, and I. can only tell my hon. friend hat the officers of the United States have exercised authority in the way of prohibition or obstruction, and have offered the pretext that the United States now hold that country | and would (1'. lwith it as they chose 3 and, therefore, as this was a ’J‘reaty to settle all old questions and not to raiencw ones, it was well that the free navigation of the rivers I have mentioned should be settled at once between l‘lngland and the United States, as before it had been between Eng- land and fins. . Before leaving the ques- tion of the St. Lawrence, 1 will make one remark and will then proceed to another topic, and that is, that the Article in ques- tion does not in any way hand over or divide any proprietary rights in the River St. Law- rence, or give ;v , so‘. weighty over it or con- , fer any righ t \\ i...‘u:ver except that of free navigation. 130th banks belong to Canada-m the management, the improvements, all belong to Canada. The only stipulation made in the Treaty is that United St