A.—s

139

Mr. BRODELR : Lord Elgin, and gentlemen, in view of the remarks made by Mr. Deakin and Sir Joseph Ward, it will not be necessary for me to-day to state the position which Canada intends to take in regard to this question of Naval Defence. Our situation is a different one to that of the other Colonies, and should be treated as such. I think, however, it would be only fair that I should state to-day that the position of Canada has not been properly represented as far as Naval Defence is concerned. I see by a document which has been laid before us that we are supposed not to have spent any money at all upon Naval Defence. That document shows what has been spent by the United Kingdom, by Newfoundland, Australia, NewZealand, the Cape, Natal, and when it comes to speak of Canada, it is simply stated there that the Naval expenditure in none. I may say at the outset that in view of the Treaty which was made in 1818 between the Imperial Government and the Government of the United States, it was formally stipulated that the Americans should have the right to come and fish on our shores, and that they should have the right also to come into our harbours when they are looking after their fishing. Outside of that, they have a right also, in virtue of that Treaty, to go to some parts of Canada to fish on the same footing as the Canadian British subjects. This particular situation, which was created in Canada by that Treaty, induced the British Admiralty to look after the defence, or after the protection of Canada, against the poaching of these American fishermen. That duty was performed, and that protection was given to our own people during many years by the British Admiralty, but for some time, especially since 1885, absolutely nothing has been done by the British authorities. All expenditure in connection with that Fisheries Protection Service has been carried on, incurred, and made by the Canadian Government. I understand that in England the Fisheries Protection Service is also under the control of the Admiralty, and all money expended for that service is found by the Admiralty. Ido not know whether, in the amount which is given in that paper as being the expenditure of the British Admiralty—33,ooo,ooo/.—that particular service is included or not. I suppose it is. Lord TWEEDMOUTH : The Newfoundland one ? Mr. BRODEUR : No, I meant the Naval expenditure of the United Kingdom, 33,000,000/., as the money expended for Naval purposes. I suppose that includes the Fisheries Protection Service too? Lord TWEEDMOUTH : Yes, certainly. Mr. BRODEUR : Of course, we would claim that the same thing should be done with Canada —that the expenditure that we make for the Fisheries Protection Service in our country should also be given as money for, and should be considered as, Naval expenditure. I must also say that this obligation which we are carrying out to-day is to a certain extent not simply a local obligation but an Imperial obligation, because that obligation was incurred in virtue of treaties, those treaties having been passed between Great Britain and the United States without, of course the consent of Canada. We are very glad to-day, however, to take upon our shoulders the expenditure in connection with that service. I may say that since 1885—since the abrogation of the Washington Treaty— we have spent for that service 3,147,990 dollars, and last year, 1905-6, we spent 250,000 dollars. I may say this year the money to be spent will be very much larger, because we.are going to construct a cruiser which will cost us about 500,000 dollars, or 100,000/. As I say, we have been very glad to

Fifth Day. 23 April 1907,

Naval Defkm i;.