1901-02-26

PRIVATE BILLS-EXTENSION OF TIME.

Mr. T. B. FLINT (Yarmouth) moved :: That the time for receiving petitions for private Bills be extended to Friday, the 15th of March next, and the time for presenting private Bills be extended to Friday, the 29th of March next, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the second report of the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders.


Mr. T. S. SPROULE (East Grey).: I have repeatedly, for years, brought the disadvantage of such proposals ns this to the attention of the House. This is the commencement in a new parliament of an evil which always results in lengthening our sessions. The time for presenting petitions for private Bills and for the introduction of private Bills cannot be unknown to the public, and they ought to be ready with their Bills at the proper time. I think that the beginning of a new parliament is the proper time for us to put our foot down on a custom which has obtained very largely of late, and which is a very inconvenient one for us. I think that if it were given out early in the session, and in this parliament, that these extensions would not be made as easily as they have been heretofore, the people would govern themselves accordingly, and this would assist Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
us greatly in getting through our work in much more reasonable time than is usually done.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I altogether agree with my hon. friend from East Grey (Mr. Sproule). The practice of extending the time for private Bills became an abuse during the life of the late parliament. At the beginning of this parliament we should insist on the rule being strictly carried out. Though I will not, at the moment, object to this motion, I must say that if any further delay is required, for my part, I shall have to ask the House not to agree to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 19) respecting the Eastern Canada Savings and Loan Company, Ltd.-Mr. Borden (Halifax).
Bill (No. 20) respecting the Nakusp and Slocan Railway Company.-Mr. Prior.
Bill (No. 21) respecting the British Columbia Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Prior.
Bill (No. 22) respecting the Columbia and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Morrison.
Bill (No. 23) respecting the Guelph Junction Railway Company-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 24) respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Guthrie.
Bill (No. 25) respecting the Ottawa and Hull Power and Manufacturing Company.- Mr. Champagne.
Bill (No. 26) respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Fortin.
Bill (No. 27) respecting the Atlantic and Lake Superior Railway Company.-Mr. Talbot.

Mr. JOHN  D.@: REID (South Grenvillei moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 28>
to regulate freight and passenger rates on railways. He said : I may say, in briefly explaining this Bill, that it is the same Bill that I introduced last session, and also the session previous. It is for the purpose of appointing a commission to regulate freight and passenger rates on railways. The Bill provides that the railway commission shall have power, in case of any difficulty arising between railway companies and shippers, to settle those matters. When the second reading comes up I shall go into the matter more fully. I hone that at this session the Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) will kindly give this matter his consideration, and help me to pass it. I believe there is a general desire through the country for the appointment of a railway commission of some kind. This Bill may

not be perfect, but if we pass it now we will have an opportunity before next session of seeing exactly what is required, and any defects in it may then be remedied. In preparing this Bill I have taken the Interstate Commerce Act as a guide. On the other side of the line, I understand, that Act is doing a great deal of good, it makes the rates uniform and protects the shippers to a great extent. I hope that my Bill will have the support of the House, and that 1 shall be able to get it through this session.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 29) to amend tne Dominion Lands Act. He said : I may say in explanation of this Bill, that its various clauses relates more or less to matters of detail in the administration of Dominion lands. The first clause needs no explanation. The second clause is for the purpose of enabling another officer to sign official documents in place of the commissioner of Dominion lands in his absence. The third clause relates to the date at which the settler is required to perfect his homestead entries by going upon the land. It provides that the entry may be declared void at the end of six months in the discretion of the minister of the department. At the present time, and for some years past, that has been the actual practice, and my attention was called to the fact that the practice has not been in accordance with the statute, and I propose to ask the House to amend the statute so as to make it accord with what has been the practice. Strictly to follow the statute at present might work a great injustice, because sometimes settlers are not able to go upon the land within the exact period of six months. The fourth clause enables the settler Who comes from the United States to have one year from the time he is making his entry to perfect it. It is found that is necessary in the case of people who come from the western states, who sometimes, after selecting their land, are not able to come back as soon as they intended. Under this clause he may have one year to perfect his entry. The fifth clause relates to an amendment made a year or two ago with respect to the homestead law under which a settler was enabled to perform his residence upon the second homestead by living upon his first homestead. It was the intention that that clause should apply only in cases where homesteads were taken up in the vicinity of the first homestead. But the settlers display considerable ingenuity in interpreting the law, and some have attempted to make it apply where the homesteads were in different parts of the countrv 14}
altogether. The amendment adds these words : ' If the second homestead is in the vicinity of the first homestead.' The sixth clause is for the purpose of removing a provision which was contained in an amendment made at the instance of the then member for Western Assiniboia, Mr. Davin, some three years ago, to enable the homesteader to get his patent for a second homestead by having a certain number of cattle instead of doing cultivation duties. The provision requiring that he shall cultivate at least one acre of land has also been found to be of no practical benefit, and we propose to remove it. The seventh section is for the purpose of removing a clerical error that existed in the amendment made a couple of years ago. The eighth section is for the purpose of removing a doubt ir. regard to the construction of a clause in the Dominion Lands Act, relating to assignments which settlers might make before they were entitled to their patent. The law does not permit a settler to make an assignment before he is entitled to his patent, but it was found in operation to be very hard, because a settler might make an assignment without knowing the provisions of the law and without intending to violate them. Two or three different provisions were made in regard to this particular subject. This clause is for the purpose of making clear the effect of the last amendment. I will go into it more fully when the Bill is before the Committee and when the legal effect of the amendment may be explained.
The 9th clause is for the purpose of enabling the Department of the Interior to issue a patent to a settler or a company who may have made an advance to a settler under the provisions of the Act which was passed a number of years ago, providing that companies might make advances to settlers upon the security of their homesteads. There have been cases in which settlers have got advances, have complied with the requirements of the law as to residence and cultivation of the soil and have left the country without getting their patents, thinking perhaps that the land was not worth any more than the advance upon it. In such cases it is quite clear that the companies are entitled to the patent for the- land so as to realize the security which was provided for under the original Act. A technical difficulty has arisen in this case by reason of the fact that some of these settlers were not British subjects and consequently the department could not issue the patents. The purpose of the amendment is to enable the department to issue a patent when the settler is not a British subject and has not taken out his naturalization papers.
The 10th clause is to enable the Department of the Interior to issue grazing leases under regulations made by the Governor in Council without each individual lease coming before council. It has been found to be extremely troublesome and to cumber
[Stage Direction]
the work of council very much, when the requirement of the law is that there should he an order in council for each lease.
The 11th clause is for the purpose of avoiding the necessity of leases of public lands issued by the Department of the Interior being under the Great Seal of the Crown. The Deputy Minister of Justice has lately advised the department that this amendment ought to be made.
Clause 12 is for the purpose of providing that in all cases where interest is accruing upon the sales of Dominion lands the rate of interest from July 7, 1900, when the Act which was passed last session relating to the rate of interest, shall be 5 per cent instead of 0 per cent, as it was before.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.: I would like the Minister of the Interior (Hon. Mr. Sifton) to expedite the return of the papers in connection with an order of the House touching any recommendation for reports as to irregularities in the administration of the present Dominion Lands Act, before the second reading of this Bill, so that we will be in possession of whatever material there is on the subject before the hon. minister asks the House to agree to the second reading.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: Mr. Speaker, I have not the least objection to expediting the return, or in fact, anything that is ordered, but, I may say that I found considerable difficulty, and the officers of the department found difficulty, in knowing what papers the hon. gentleman meant by that motion. If he has any particulars in his mind, if he will write me a note specifying what they are in such a way as to help us to find out what he is referring to, I will be happy to do what he suggests.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry that the officers of the hon. minister are not more acute in connection with these matters. The order of the House is for :
Copies of all reports, official memoranda and papers dealing with irregularities, mistakes by order in council or otherwise in the administration of the provisions of the Dominion Lands Act in the Yukon district.
Now, the hon. gentleman has mentioned, as I understood him, in the introduction of this Bill a question with which he proposes to deal, the question of the execution of some leases. They may not relate to this district, although the .yet itself does. Touching, for instance, the execution of these leases and the affixing of the Great Seal for the purpose of validity-this is one suggestion, but the order of the House expressly refers to any question of irregularity. When we see the provisions of this Bill there may be some retroactive clauses-I fancy there are, as it has generally been the case, and


Mr. SIFTON.: the effect of these provisions will be to make valid or cure any irregularity that has occurred. 1 am not in a position to give a definite statement as to any case that has come up. I have no particular case in my mind whatever, but it occurred to me that in the administration of that Act there may have been, and it is a natural supposition that there must have been, irregularities, especially as relates to that far-away district in connection with the operation of that Act. If these reports or memoranda are in the possession of the department this order of the House will, of course, attach to any of them. If, on the other hand, there are none, none will be brought down. But, following the minister to-day, it occurred to me, that one of the provisions that he mentioned of his Bill has reference to some irregularities in the issue of leases. It may not be as confined as this order of the House is, to the Yukon district. That may be, but I am not able to particularize any more than the order of the House has done in regard to such irregularities.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: There is not the least objection on my part to expedite the return in every possible way. When a general order of that kind is made in connection with the department where the transactions have been very many and the amount of business very extensive, it is, of course, more satisfactory for the minister, if there has been any special transaction in the mind of the hon. gentleman who moves for the return, to know what transaction is referred to, so that he can see what papers there are on the subject. However,
I will do everything possible to see that the papers are brought down without delay.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: The only case that suggests itself to my mind is in regard to the water front at Dawson. There may be some action in regard to the leasing of the water front where, the hon. minister will remember, there was no formal lease executed and yet the parties went into possession as if a lease had been formally executed. I did not have that in my mind when I made the motion ; still it would cover it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN CHARLTON (North Norfolk) moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 30) further to amend the Dominion Lands Act. He said : Mr. Speaker, I shall take the liberty of following the example set by my hon. friend the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Sifton), and acting in accordance with a very wholesome practice in the British House of Commons where it is customary to explain the character and nature of Bills

upon their introduction, to offer a few remarks upon the measure that I propose to submit to the House. The Bill which I shall have the honour to place in your hands, Mr. Speaker, provides for certain amendments to the Dominion Lands Act. It provides that subclauses 2, 3, and 4 of clause 29 of the Dominion Lands #ct, chap. 54, R.S.C., be repealed, and the following clauses substituted therefor :
Subclause 2. The sale of the public lands of the Dominion suitable for agricultural purposes shall be to actual settlers only upon reasonable terms of settlement and in such areas as can be reasonably occupied and cultivated by the settler.
Subclause 3. No grants of public lands of the Dominion shall in future be made to railway or other corporations.
Subclause 4. Subelause 5 of class 29 aforesaid is hereby amended by substituting the word ' may ' for the word ' shall ' wherever the same occurs in the third line of the said sub-clause.
The provision of this Bill as embodied in the hist subclause with reference to the reservation of the agricultural lands of this Dominion for actual settlers only, is a provision which was adopted by the opposition in the House of Commons in the year 1879, and it formed a portion of the policy which they presented to this country from that time on. It is a provision which was embodied in the platform, adopted by the great Liberal convention which met in this city in June, 1893. It is a provision which I believe, Mr. Speaker, has been practically adhered to and honoured in the observance by the government during the past five years. Still, I think it well that this provision should be placed in explicit terms upon the statute-book, and should not be left as a provision to be carried into effect by departmental regulations, and by the action of the government in a sense, where that action may under certain circumstances be made to vary from the principle laid down. It is unnecessary for me at any length to enlarge upon the .iustice of this provision, or to enlarge upon the necessity in the public's interest for endorsing and preserving this principle. The future greatness of this country will depend upon the settlement and the cultivation of its public lands, and any measure or policy which is calculated to lessen the hardships that beset the pioneers in their struggles against the difficulties incident to the task that they undertake in a new country, is a policy which should meet with the approbation of every citizen of Canada. The more rapidly these public lands can be settled and the more favourable the conditions under which the toiler settles these lands, the greater is the benefit that Canada will derive from the extension of civilization and the bringing under cultivation of these waste areas. It is an outrageous thing. Sir, to allow the middleman to step in between the settler and the government, and purchase large areas of land
to be doled out by him afterwards to the settler at three times or four times or mayhap five times the price which the government received from him for these lands. The interests of the country are in no sense benefited by such a transaction. The settler is injured; the government receive no greater advantage than would have accrued had it reserved the land for sale direct to the settler, except, possibly a small item of interest upon the sum it received from the speculator in anticipation of the time when it would sell these lands to the actual settler. For reasons, which I might enlarge upon to a great extent, the policy which 1 propose is one which ought to commend itself to the favourable judgment of every member of this House. It is a policy which the government lias practically recognized, and it is a policy which should be placed upon the statute-book as a mandate to this government, and to all future governments in reference to the management of our public domain.
With regard to the second subclause of this Bill, which provides that in future no land grants, whether of agricultural lands or otherwise, shall be made to any railway or any other corporation; I think it is high time that this matter should receive the careful and candid consideration of this House. 1 have it upon the authority of the Minister of the Interior, that we have at this moment (>7,000,000 acres of land locked up in the North-west. Not all of these acres are lands that the railway company will acquire but all of this-an empire in itself-is withheld from settlement till the railway corporations deign to inform us what portion of these lands they will take for their grants. These lands can not be settled; these lands must lie waste; not only are they not susceptible to settlement, but the condition prevailing, that these lands intervene between the railways and the public lands of the Dominion, that are available for settlement, is a condition which is in the highest degree detrimental to the interests of the country. These lands cannot be taxed, and where in some cases these lands are located by railway companies, the settlers are scattered here and there upon alternate sections struggling with the difficulty of having one-tliird or perhaps one-half the land of a township that can be cultivated, taxed or settled upon, and this one-third or one-half the area of the township must bear the expense of making roads for the whole township, the expense of establishing school sections, and all the expenses incident to civilization in this far western country.
It always causes me a pang to think of our fatuity in the past in granting such enormous areas so recklessly as we have done. Sixty-seven millions acres tied up now. to say nothing of the lands that have been appropriated by the railways. And what are 67.000,000 acres ? Why 67,000,000 acres is an area large enough for two or
[Stage Direction]
three provinces, and the holding back from settlement of this vast area is not only a drawback, but positively a disaster to the country. It is time to change our policy. We gave in 1881, 25,000,000 acres of land to one corporation. We gave to that corporation $25,000,000 in money. We gave to that corporation certain sections of the Canadian Pacific Kailway constructed by ourselves, and which cost us $30,000,000. We loaned to that corporation $20,000,000. We took back from the corporation at $1.50 an acre, lands for $10,000,000 of this money. We paid for the Canadian Pacific Railway. We paid every dollar that it cost, and if we had built this road as government property we would have had it to-day without expending one dollar more than we have expended, and we would have had all the lands that have been granted to boot. Now, I do not make any attack upon the Canadian Pacific Railway. They coped with gigantic difficulties. That enterprise was put through with brilliant success and energy, and it has been a great work to keep that road open. It was an important national undertaking. It produced important national fruits. We might possibly have built that road and lost a good deal of money in running it. We might have demonstrated our incapacity to run the road as well as this private corporation has done; but, whatever may be said upon this question on one side or the other, I hold that the time has now come when this system of recklessly giving away the public domain of Canada to railway promoters with the intention of developing the country that we give away, is a policy which we had better cease to pursue. The policy of the United States in this respect might furnish us with a wholesome lesson. The same spirit of recklessness prevailed in that country when they had an enormous public domain. They did not realize that this land would be wanted in the near future by the settler. They failed to realize the greatness of the heritage they had in their possession. They failed to recognize the importance of husbanding these resources, and dealing with this vast public domain in a common sense and proper manner, and it was given to railway promoters- given in millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions of acres ; and one day the United States government woke up to find that they had practically no public land left- that the whole of the public domain was in the hands of corporations ; and these corporations have gone on rolling up their wealth, until now we have a syndicate owning nearly all the railways of the United States and the United States government has, by its land policy, contributed to the result which the whole country deplores today. We do not want to follow their example. We want to realize before it is too late, that the entire policy of making land grants to railways, was an ill-conceived and
Mr. CHARLTON.: mistaken policy. For these reasons I think the time has come when this parliament should, by legislation, affirm the principle that land grants of this character are not in the public interest, and shall not hereafter be made. These are the leading features of the Bill ; and, without entering more fulty at the present time into the discussion of them, I beg to submit the Bill for its first reading.


Mr. D. C. FRASER (Guysborough).: I beg leave to support this Bill with all my heart. I believe, as the hon. member for North Norfolk has said, that the land of this country belongs to the country for the people who till it ; and if that fundamental principle is kept in view, our country will increase as it never has done before. I will go further than the hon. member. Not only would I prohibit the giving of any land to large corporations, and give it only to those who would become bona fide settlers upon it, but I would to-morrow find some means of estimating the value every acre of land that belongs to the Canadian Pacific and every other corporation, and I would pay them what they are entitled to for their land, and throw it open to actual settlers. We never can succeed in a country like the North-west except by the settlers settling down as near one another as possible, and under the most favourable conditions. Indeed, there are those who think that it might perhaps be a good investment for the government to make it still easier for the settlers by building small houses for them, and in the meantime holding the land as security. I will not go that far, for I think that any man who gets 160 acres of land in that country under the conditions now prevailing will have no difficulty, if he is a diligent and careful man, in making a better living there than he could in the older provinces. But 1 would not hamper him at all. I would give him the opportunity of getting the land. I would open every district in the country, making it as free as it was before we obtained possession of it, to every good man who wanted to go in and settle there. That country will never become as great as it was destined to be until these restrictions are removed. It is right in principle, and what is right in principle will always work out in practice. This is not the first time that I have declared in this House most emphatically, and I will continue to declare, that any government of this country would do a wise thing for the country if they could again obtain possession of the lands which we have given to various corporations, and throw them open to the people. The effect of this Bill will be that the land will only be given to bona fide settlers. That will have a double effect. In the first place, settlers knowing that they can get land there, and that it will not be tied up, will be more ready to go into that country ; and in the next place,

the alternate sections not being held by the corporations, the settlers will come nearer to one another. Their roads, their school-houses, and all their material interests, are bound up in this question. I support this Bill, and trust that it will receive the sanction of this parliament.


Hon. JOHN HAGGAET (South Lanark).: We shall perhaps have a better knowledge of what this Bill is when we come to the second reading ; but I cannot allow the first reading to take place without referring to the remarks of the hon. member for North Norfolk (Air. Charlton), and the hon. member for Guysborough (Air. Fraser), as to the application of the Bill. I do not understand the position they take, in view of the statement which I understood the Alin-ister of the Interior (Hon. Air. Sifton) to make last session, that all the lands which it was possible to give to railways, had been granted already. He has not any lands to give, and therefore the Bill is of no use.


John Charlton: Oh, no ; he has not reached the Peace River Valley yet.


Hon.   A@: Well, that was the statement made by the Alinister of the Interior last session. A sudden change has come over the spirits of the hon. member for North Norfolk and the hon. member for Guysborough. But a short time ago we had introduced into this House the celebrated Yukon Railway Bill, the object of which was to give a large grant of land to a railway company, and, if I remember rightly, both the hon. member for North Norfolk and the hon. member for Guysborough supported that Bill. I congratulate both of these gentlemen on their change of view ; but the practical application of this Bill is all nonsense. The lands that have been granted for railroads in fact cover all tlie lands that are at the disposal of the government. They have no more land to give to railroad companies, and to introduce a Bill to stop the giving of lands when they have none to dispose of, is a perfect absurdity. As to the rest of the lands, the conditions which the hon. member for North Norfolk wishes to impose by the Bill, are already imposed by the Dominion Lands Act, namely, that they are to be given to actual settlers only.


The AIINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: I have no intention of speaking at any length on the Bill ; but my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) referred to his understanding of a statement which I made, and it would be hardly proper for me not to put the matter right. The statement I made to the House last session,' or the session before, was with regard to the ability of the government to satisfy the demands of a railway company under its contract; and the statement I made was that the government had not been in a position to
offer those gentlemen from the odd-numbered sections such lands as they were willing to accept. The statement was not quite so unreserved a one as my hon. friend has said.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN (East York).: I would like to point out for the information of hon. gentlemen opposite, that the way to get all these lands back, is to go in for the scheme of government ownership of railways, which I proposed the other day. That was one of my main reasons, which I forgot in the heat of my argument. I pointed out that we could secure the Canadian Pacific Railway by lease, but I forgot to point out that if we leased that road, we would get back every acre of its land grant. True, I believe the land is pledged for the bonds of the road ; but the land would come into the hands of the government again, and we would have it for the people ; and I believe there is enough land owned by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to-day, if taken back into the hands of the government, and used to the best advantage, to pay every bond and every other indebtedness of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If these gentlemen wish to have the land returned to the people, and settled under the best auspices, there is the way to do it : nationalize the railways, get the land back, and use that land to bring settlers into Canada.


The AIINISTER OF RAILAVAYS AND CANALS (Hon. A. G. Blair).: I presume it will be better to have the Bill placed in the hands of hon. members before entering upon any extensive discussion of the questions involved, and therefore, I do not rise for that purpose. I rise rather for the purpose of calling attention to the statement which my hon. friend made, who. introduced the Bill, and which seems to imply an erroneous idea, and one which I think it would be well to correct. Aly hon. friend stated that he thought the time had now arrived when we should reverse our policy of giving settlement lands to railways in the form of subsidies or land grants. I take exception to the implication, because I submit that that time has already arrived and that we reserved that policy some years ago. This government reversed that policy, and resolved that it would not give any settlement lands by way of subsidy to any railway, and have adhered to that resolution.


John Graham Haggart: Hear, hear.


The AIINISTER OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS. .: I repeat the government has adhered to that resolution. I am not now speaking of mineral lands, for I think there could be no possible objection at any time to giving mineral lands, if thereby we insure the prospecting of mines and the development of the country as well as the construction of railways. But there is a clear and manifest distinction in the mind of

any one who considers the subject, between grants of mineral and grants of settlement lands, and that distinction the government has drawn and adheres to. No legislation therefore is' necessary, so far as this government is concerned, in order that the policy we have adopted of not giving settlement lands as railway subsidies shall be adhered to.
At the same time I have not suggested any objection to the Bill itself. I do not know precisely what the Bill is, and when it comes to be closely examined in its details, it may be found desirable to modify it. But so far. as regards the general objects which the hon. gentleman states he has in view, I think they will be found to commend themselves to the House generally, as I am sure they commend themselves to the government.



PACIFIC CABLE.

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved that the House resolve itself to-morrow into Committee of the Whole on the following resolution :
That, whereas by ' The Pacific Cable Act, 1899,' His Excellency in Council is authorized to guarantee payment of five-eighteenths of the principal sum of £1,700,000 sterling to be applied in establishing direct submarine telegraphic communication between Canada and Australia.
And whereas, in lieu of said sum of £1,700,000 it is estimated that for the purpose aforesaid there will be required a sum not exceeding £2,000,000 sterling, which sum of £2,000,000 the government ot the United Kingdom is willing to advance.
That the Governor in Council is authorized to guarantee payment of five-eighteenth parts of the principal and interest of and upon the securities to be issued by the government of the United Kingdom for raising the said sum, namely, £2,000,000 to be advanced.
That section 3 of said Act be repealed.
He said : This resolution has received the assent of the Crown.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN (Victoria, N.B.) It was my intention, Mr. Speaker, to move an amendment to that motion, but on consideration, I have decided to pursue a course, the wisdom of which I have already experienced in a former session. I think I would be treating the House more courteously. and also the government, if, instead of availing myself of this opportunity to move the amendment, I put my motion before the House and parliament, in order that parliament and the country may know its nature, and be prepared for it when presented.
['This is merely an approximate estimate. As the country grows, the service is constantly increasing, and doubtless this estimate will not he sufficient. We have had hon. gentlemen to-night pressing the government to increase the mail service. This is an increase of $20,000. Probably $10,000 will be set apart for land service, stages, &c., and $10,000 for railway service. There are railways approaching completion, and applications are coming in for mail service. With a growing service, an increased vote is necessary.\nPost Office-Outside Service-Miscellaneous expenditure\t $235,000', 'Wednesday, February 27, 1901.']
Mr. BLAIR.: I regret to say that my experience convinces me that with regard to the motion I intend to move, and the reasons that impel me to move it, the House would, to some extent, be taken by surprise in entering upon a debate on the question this afternoon. Therefore, I think it is better simply to give notice of my indention on the next occasion on which this House is moved into Committee of Supply, to propose in amendment to the motion to go into Supply, the following resolution. And I wish to declare here that in moving that amendment, I expect the government to receive it as a friendly one-that is, one not inspired by any political reasons, and which should not be received as a vote of want of confidence, because if it is moved as an amendment to going into Supply, that is simply because that is the only way of obtaining a fair expression of opinion on a proposition of this kind.
There are many precedents, which the older members of the House may remember, for the course I am taking, which I might quote. I wish, therefore, to announce now that on the next occasion when the motion is made for this House to go into Committee of Supply, I will move this resolution in amendment.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: If my hon. friend would allow me. I would suggest, since he intends to make the motion as a friendly one, that probably it would be just as well, before submitting it to the House, to give us its subject-matter and nature.


Hon. JOHN COSTIGAN.: I was going to read the whole motion. My object in postponing it, is to have it before the House before submitting it. It is as follows
That an humble address be presented to His Most Gracious Majesty the King, as follows
Most Gracious Majesty,-
Tour Majesty's most faithful and loyal subjects, the Commons of Canada, in parliament assembled, beg leave most humbly to represent :
That as a token of the civil and religious liberties and of the quality of rights guaranteed to all British subjects in the Canadian confederation as well as under the British constitution, the British sovereign should not be called to make any declaration offensive to the religious belief of any subject of the British Crown.
That by virtue of the Act of Settlement of 1689 the British sovereign, on the first day of the meeting of the first parliament, or at the coronation, is called upon to make the following declaration
' I, A. B., by the grace of God, King (or Queen) of Great Britain and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do believe that in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is not any transubstantiation of the elements of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, at or after the consecration thereof by any pergon whatsoever ; and that

the invocation of adoration of the Virgin Mary or any other saint, and the sacrifice of the Mass, as they are now used in the Church of Rome, are superstitious and idolatrous. And I do solemnly, in the presence of God, profess, testify and declare that I do make this declaration, and each and every part thereof, in the plain and ordinary sense of the words read unto me, as they are commonly understood by English Protestants, without any evasion, equivocation or mental reservation whatsoever, and without any dispensation already granted me for this purpose by the Pope or any other authority or person whatsoever, or without any hope of any such dispensation from any person or authority whatsoever, or without thinking that I am or can be acquitted before God or man, or absolved of this declaration or any part thereof, although the Pope or any person or persons, or power whatsoever, should dispense with or annul the same or declare that it was null and void from the beginning.'
That such declaration is most offensive to the dearest convictions of all Roman Catholics.
That the staunch loyalty of His Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects in Canada, comprising about 43 per cent of the entix'e population of this Dominion, and throughout British possessions, should not be rewarded by their being chosen alone amongst believers of all creeds and branded as adolatgrs by their sovereign.
That in the opinion of this House, the above-mentioned Act of Settlement should be amended by abolishing the said declaration, and the British sovereign freed for ever from the obligation of offending the religious principles of any class of his faithful subjects throughout the British Empire.
That is the motion I intend to move as an amendment on going into Supply, on the first occasion I have the opportunity of doing so.



Hon.  E. G.@: PRIOR (Victoria, B.C.) Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House, and especially of the government, to a matter that I think of considerable moment to Canada, particularly to the Pacific coast. I see In the newspapers an account of the proposed visit of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, and it is as follows :-
In connection with the proposed visit to the colonies of their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York, the London Times states that it has been decided to commission the Ophir this month, and that their Royal Highnesses will leave England in March. The cruise, which will extend to Canada, will probably occupy about six months; and, according to present arrangements, the following places will be visited :	Gibraltar, Malta, Colombo,
Singapore, all the Australian colonies and two ports in New Zealand, one in each island. The homeward voyage will probably include Mauritius, the Cape, and possibly one of the West Indian Islands, as well as a Canadian port.
With regard to the escort, two cruisers of the Channel squadron will accompany the Ophir to Gibraltar

-and so ou. From that account and from all the accounts in the newspapers that I have seen, it seems that their Royal Highnesses are not to visit the Pacific coast, and, if they come to Canada, as we trust they will, they will come to Halifax, aud probably then come inland a little way, perhaps to Montreal and Toronto, but not further west. I think hon. gentlemen will agree with me that, if such is the case, it will he a thousand pities for the good of all concerned. When our present King was here as Prince of Wales in 1860, he did not go any further west than Toronto.


William Findlay Maclean: He went to Hamilton.


Hon. Mr. PRIOR.: But, as in those days the splendid province of Manitoba, and the great North-west and British Columbia, were, to all intents and purposes, a terra incognita to most people, and very sparsely inhabited, they were not visited by our present King. But, see the change that has taken place in the last few years. These provinces and territories are now populated by thousands and thousands of loyal and staunch people, who would give anything to have the same chance of seeing their Royal Highnesses as the people of eastern Canada will have. In the first place, it would strengthen the ties that already so strongly bind the colonies to the mother land, and it would also show our future King and Queen the immense value and immense area of this great country and also the affectionate regard in which they are held by the people. Not only that, Sir, but, coming down to a less important matter, though one of great importance to us, it would draw the attention of the whole world to the great possibilities of this country of ours. We all know that every movement of such distinguished people as the Duke and Duchess of Cornwall and York are heralded by the press and brought to the notice of the whole world. Nothing that could take place, I think, would bring Canada more to the attention of the world than a trip of these distinguished visitors from one side of the continent to the other. I, therefore, thought it was my duty, as representative of the Pacific coast, to bring this matter forward, and to impress upon the government what I consider the necessity of their doing their best to cause this route, which has already been mapped out, to be altered to some extent, if possible, and to bring about such a change as will allow their Royal Highnesses to come to the Pacific coast, and from there, travel across the continent and take ship on the Atlantic.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: I may inform my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Prior) that correspondence is now going on between Ottawa and London on this very subject. The correspondence at this moment is confidential, and it

is not in my power to give communication of it to the House, or to go into particulars as to the tenor of that correspondence. But I may say that I am altogether with my hon. friend in thinking that it would be most unfortunate if their Royal Highnesses of Cornwall and York have not an opportunity of visiting every province in the Dominion when they come to Canada next summer. The most convenient, and, I believe, the best mode of all, would be for their Royal Highnesses, who are to return from Australia next September, to come by way of the Pacific instead of the Atlantic, landing at Vancouver, visiting British Columbia, the Territories, Manitoba, and so on, down towards Halifax. That is the view, I think we can assume, that is being represented at this moment to their Royal Highnesses. More than this I cannot say at this moment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: We will take up the Post Office estimates.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What has become of the understanding that we were to proceed with these estimates in the order in which they appear in the book ? We have not begun yet.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am afraid my hon. friend did not attend late last night. Announcement was made that this would be the business to-day.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: But that does not answer my question. I thought that when we began this year, for purposes of convenience, a special understanding was reached that we would proceed with the estimates from cover to cover.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That would certainly be desirable, but it is not always possible to follow that rule. It may be that the minister in charge of the item which appears next in the book may not be able to be here. I agree that there should be timely notice given of the business of the following day.
Post Office-Outside Service-Salaries and allowances, including James A. MacDonald, London post office, at $720, notwithstanding anything in the Civil Service Act. $1,296,915 39


John Graham Haggart: I would like the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Muloek) to tell us now to begin with-we might as well have it now-what is the deficit in the management of the Post Office Department this year, to the beginning of the month ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Wm. Muloek).: We have not got it. We Sir WILFRID LAURIER.
do not balance up our accounts except once a year.


John Graham Haggart: Give it to the 1st of July.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: On page 4, of the Postmaster General's Report, you will see the gross revenue was $4,345,826.62 to the end of the 30th of June, last.


Air. MONK.: Can the hon. gentleman tell us exactly what the deficit was on the 30th of June 1


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That also appears in the Postmaster General's Report, page A-II, $461,661.87.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I am glad the hon. the Postmaster General has given us this information, because I remember not very long ago a speech made by that hon. gentleman in our part of the country. I want to read the Committee a report of his speech that appeared in his own paper, the ' great speech of the Postmaster General at Aleaford,' in support of his friend Mr. C. W. Hartman, whom he was bound to elect. He went on to decry what had been done by his predecessor, and said with regard to his own conduct of the Post Office Department :
Hon. Wm. Muloek stated that he had praeti-cially wiped out a deficit of $780,000, and left a million dollars in the pockets of the people.
I denied that statement at my nomination. It was made in my presence by his candidate, Air. Hartman, and I had with me then the Public Accounts and gave them as my authority. In answer to that, my opponent said: But, these Public Accounts are a year old, and I am authorized to say that that deficit is wiped out. Now, I have the hon. gentleman's report for the last year in my hand, and what does it say :
The deficit on June 30, 1899, was $398,917.
Just as I gave it to that audience then, and my hon. friend the Postmaster General misled that audience by telling them there was no such deficit. On the 30th of June, 1900, tlie deficit given in this same return is $461*-661, as the Postmaster General has given it now. Yet he had that information in his own department last November, but he told the people of Grey that he had wiped that all out, and he asked the people to vote for his candidate, because of the successful management of the Post Office Department by himself. Now, what does this Committee think of the twaddle dished up to an unsuspecting audience back in our country by the Postmaster General when he misleads them by such a statement ? I want this House to know it, and I want the country to know it, because I said then as I say now, that when that return comes down which I am perfectly satisfied that the deficit will be larger instead of smaller, and instead of being wiped out it will be at least $400,000 if not more. His own report verifies that

prediction, and it proves tlie correctness of what I said, and the incorrectness of what the Postmaster General told the people of the east riding of Grey, when he was up there in the last campaign.


Mr. BENNETT.: I think it is only fair to the Postmaster General to remind the Committee that the figures are not down to the present time. While there was last year a deficit of $46,000, that deficit may now he turned the other way, because the Postmaster General gave the assurance that before long the deficit would be wiped out in its entirety. That was the statement made by the premier himself on the authority and on the assurance of the Postmaster General. Now, the premier happened to be in the town of Stratford, and it is a noteworthy circumstance that wherever the premier went in the province of Ontario, devastation followed the Grit candidate. At Stratford, the premier told what the deficit was in 1890, and said that the Postmaster General had reduced that deficit to a nominal amount. And, mark you, at that time tlie premier must have been aware that there was a deficit of $401,000, because that speech was made subsequent to the 1st day of July. But, the premier was bound to go one better on that occasion, and lie said :
And he had the Postmaster General's authority for further saying that by the end of the present year the revenue and expenditure would balance one another.
Now, I think the premier is to be commiserated in this, that he went out on a public platform and made a statement oil the assurance of the Postmaster General that that deficit was wiped out in its entirety. Now, the premier is placed on one of the two horns of a dilemma: Either the Postmaster General made the statement to him or lie did not. If the Postmaster General made that statement to the premier,, he tried the confidence game on him; and, I say that here, and now is tlie proper time for the Postmaster General to apologize to the premier for having misled him into making that statement.


Mr. WALLACE.: While the Postmaster General is apologizing, I will give the Committee another fact. He told us a few minutes ago, when asked by members on this side of the House to give his statement of the present fiscal year so far as lie could, and he said : We do not keep any accounts, we do not balance till the end of the year. Well, Mr. Chairman, I hold in my hand a statement of accounts of the Post Office Department for the five months ending with the month of November, 1900, showing a comparison between November, of 1900, and November, 1899, and it is as follows :	In November, 1899, tlie department expended $260,000; in November, 1900, $309,000 or $49,000 more. That was furnished by the Post Office Department. For the five months ending November 30, 1899, tlie expenditure was $1,150,000; for the five months ending November 30, 1900, the expenditure was $1,279,237.50, or an increase in these five months of $129,237. Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the lion. Postmaster General to explain why we have statements made here by tlie Department of Trade and Commerce which lie said could not be given in this House, because they kept no such record. We have the record here.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not wish to be bound by the reports of speeches, nor, in saying that, Mr. Chairman, do I desire for one moment to depart in the slightest degree from anything stated by me, or by my authority, publicly or elsewhere, in regard to my administration. Perhaps, when I have made my observations, it will not appear that matters are so far astray as some lion, gentlemen would seem to prove and perhaps desire. On January 1, 1899, tlie government reduced the rate of postage in Canada from three to two cents, and a week before a reduction of the rate from Canada to the greater part of the empire from five to two cents took place. That necessarily for the moment caused a shrinkage in the revenue of the department. Some gentlemen estimated it at one figure and others at another. The late lion. Minister of Finance (Mr. Foster), speaking in 1895, if I remember correctly, estimated the loss at $700,000. That was in his budget speech. The late leader of the opposition (Sir Charles Tupper) subsequently, in addressing the public, estimated the loss of revenue at $1,000,000 a year. It is not necessary to ascertain, nor can it be definitely ascertained, what that loss will amount to. It is sufficient to know that if for the moment you reduce tlie revenue from the domestic letter rate of three cents to two cents you, for the moment, cut down the revenue by one-third, that you do very materially, for the moment. affect the revenue, and when, in the spring of 1898, I asked parliament to authorize us to reduce our rate from three to two cents, I stated that for the time being there would be a substantial shrinkage in our revenue and that for the moment I thought it would necessarily lead to a considerable deficit between revenue and expenditure. Without being bound then or even now as to what would be the time limit when the volume of revenue would attain its former position, I ventured the prophecy in parliament then that the revenue would recover its former volume in about three years. I said that until it recovered we must expect substantial deficits in the working of the department, but that month by month as the people came to appreciate the advantage of cheap postage and took greater advantage of the postal system, there would be a considerable growth of revenue, and in

time it would attain its former proportions. 1 am not liere to compare results, because the time has not yet come ; the time in which I ventured to say that the revenue would attain its former position has not yet been reached, but I would say that the reduction went into effect on January 1, 1899. It, therefore, only had six months' effect on the public accounts of the department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1899. For the fiscal year, during the last half of which the rate of postage was reduced, there was a deficit of $398,000, or we may say $400,000. Twice $400,000 would be $800,000. Of course, the whole of that deficit was not occasioned, I presume, though a large portion of it was, by the reduction in the rates. Now, the next fiscal year closing June 30 last found us with a deficit for the full year of $461,000. For that deficit the country had for one whole year enjoyed the advantage of the reduced rates which hon. gentlemen prophesied would mean a loss of revenue of as much as $700,000, while others said that it would mean a greater loss. If we had had during that year the higher rates that my predecessors enjoyed, or if we had had the same amount of business, there would have been a very considerable surplus, but, when we began the fiscal year on July 1, 1899, we had only six months in which to recover the revenue, and therefore, the fiscal year beginning on July 1,1899, began with a very largely reduced revenue because of the reduction in the rates, but, Sir, the loss of revenue in July was very much less than it was in the previous January. In January, the first month of 1899, when the country had the reduced rates, there was a large loss of revenue. If that loss had represented the rate of loss throughout the year it would have represented a great shrinkage in revenue for the year, and in that case it would have proved the assertion of the former leader of the opposition, that this change in the rate meant a loss of revenue amounting to the best part of a million dollars. As months went by, our revenue began to increase, and it has steadily increased from that time to this. There is one feature in connection with the revenue that surprised me. Though the revenue grew month by month with varying proportion, but generally growing as compared with the corresponding month of the previous year under higher rates, I assumed that the growth would continue uninterrupted. Our revenue in the month of August, I think, was $4,000 above what it had been in the former August under the higher rates. I did not anticipate any interruption in that steady growth of revenue beginning with a deficit in January, 1899, and that deficit being almost wiped out within a period of less than a year and nine months, but, I found, a short time ago, that there had been an interruption. Hon. gentlemen may draw their own conclusions ; I give Mr. MITLOCK.
them these statements and they may explain the cause. For the months of September and November, 1900, we lost revenue, as compared with the corresponding months of the preceding year. What is the cause of that ? My theory is that as during the fall of 1900, Canada, Great Britain and the United States were undergoing the struggle of a general election, the volume of our trade must have been affected by these disturbances, and so the extraordinary circumstances happened of a loss of revenue in the post office for September and November, 1900. There was a surplus in the month of October, but taking the three months together the revenue only represented a growth of some $13,000 per month, which was less than we enjoyed from the time we reduced the postage. My calculations have been disturbed to that extent, and to that extent only. What I sought to represent on the platform was, and what I state here is, that having practiced wise economy-not penury, but fair economy-in the administration of the department, this, witli the reduced postal rates and the general prosperity, and increased trade that Canada has enjoyed owing to the government of this country, have made their mark upon the post office revenue so that what 1 prophesied in 1888, has been fully realized, if the experience of the past month is to continue. When we point to a deficit for the year 1900, of $460,000, we must remember that the reduced postal rates had only been in force for six months. We began that fiscal year with a revenue suffering extremely from that cut, but each month it gradually recovered itself. Even if it recover'd its former position at the close of the year, that would still leave us a shortage which would be felt upon our accounts by reason of the loss of revenue for the preceding months. And so it has been a sort of a stern chase; the revenue seeking to overtake the former figure, and now I may say that for the month of January, 1901, that is, two years after we reduced our postage rates, the revenue is $29,000 greater for that month than it was for January two years ago under the higher rates.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sure that hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House will be pleased with that information. We began with a great shrinkage in 1899. I ventured to prophesy that our revenue would attain its former figure within a period of about three years, and now in the twenty-fifth month ; in this month of January, 1901, we have a surplus of $29,000 over the revenue which we had under the higher postage rates.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: What was the revenue for that month ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will send for the figures and get them for the

lion, gentleman. What 1 desire to say to the country now is, that if our revenue continues in this buoyant state, the department may in a short time be considered to be on a paying basis. I repeat that statement. Of course, the country is growing, and 1 would not wish to starve the service. It would be unwise to do so, and if we do not increase the service we might, on the present basis of revenue, let the department pay its own way. When an lion, gentleman gets up and produces the accounts which appear in the official Gazette month by month,
I would point out that they by no means represent the net results of the operation of the Post Office Department, or of any other department, up to that moment. There may be receipts and expenditures not fully accounted for, and it is only a month or two after the close of the fiscal year, when you have all the figures in that you can balance up the revenue and expenditure. I have not got the figures for the current year. The current year began in July last, with a loss of revenue as compared with the month of July, at the higher postal rate. We had not attained the volume of revenue we attained in the seven months of the year, and therefore, whilst the expenditure' goes on the same throughout the whole twelve months, we did not get the full benefit of the high revenue for the whole year. My hon. friend from West York (Mr. Wallace) ventured to express the opinion that the deficit this year would exceed the deficit of last year. He may be right.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I did not make that statement.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understood some hon. gentleman opposite to make that statement. I venture to say, at all events, that when the accounts are balanced, there will be no such result. I believe it will be found that for the fiscal year we are now in, our revenue and expenditure will be much closer than they ever were under the preceding government-not than they were under the present government, because in 1898, we had only a deficit of $47,000, as against a deficit of $781,000, the year that I took office. This year we are now in, the deficit will be much less than it was last year, notwithstanding the fact that the public will have reaped whatever advantage there is in having to pay two cents only instead of three cents under a former administration. When we enter upon our next fiscal year ; unless we are compelled to incur large expenditures-and as I have said I would not wish to impair the usefulness of the department by unwise economy-I think that with the fiscal year beginning the 1st of July next, you will find but little difference between the revenue and the expenditure of the Post Office Department. I do not know that I can add anything further, but. I shall be extremely
pleased to give any information that I may be asked for.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. Postmaster General persists in sticking to the statement, which has been so thoroughly threshed out in this House in the last two sessions, in regard to that deficit of $780,000. I think he ought to know by this time that there was no such deficit. He makes that deficit by including in the accounts for the year accounts which had not matured in that year, but which were paid in the succeeding year, and which his predecessors were accustomed to charge to the year in which they were paid. He charges virtually the accounts for eighteen months against one year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is entirely wrong.


John Graham Haggart: No, I am not wrong. Not eighteen months, perhaps, but nearly that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sure my hon. friend does not want to misstate tiie facts. There are included some old accounts, amounting to $600,000 or $700,000 ; but if the accounts he refers to had been included, the deficit would have been nearly $1,400,000 instead of $780,000.


John Graham Haggart: My hon. friend knows that I do not mean anything of the kind. What I do mean, is that there were certain contracts running which were payable in July, and it was the habit of the department, as the accounts could not come in before the 1st of July, to pay them in the succeeding year. These accounts the hon. gentleman charges to the preceding year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No. My hon. friend is quite mistaken.


John Graham Haggart: I am not mistaken at all. We threshed out the question again and again. I took the trouble of going to my old deputy, Colonel White, and getting a statement of all the facts from him, and he showed me conclusively that that was the reason. Why is it that the hon. gentleman shows a deficit of nearly $400,000 more for the year 1896 than for the preceding year ? I am so certain of the matter that there cannot be any doubt about it. The hon. gentleman has charged to the year all the accounts which he thinks ought to be paid before the 1st of July, although they did not come in until a couple of months afterwards, while we had been in the habit of charging them to the year in which they were paid. The consequence is that he cannot now balance his accounts on the 1st of July, but has to wait for two or three months after the expiration of the year to find out all the accounts which he

thinks ought to be charged to that year. It may he a better system of book-keeping, but I do not believe it is. I believe the proper system is to charge the accounts to the year in which they are paid. It is impossible to keep the accounts hanging over for three or four months for the purpose of making a balance. But the hon. gentleman, by an alteration in the system of book-keeping, which he introduced when he came into office, made the deficit appear far larger than it really was, in order to show-and the statement was made boldly from one end of the country to the other- not perhaps that the boons of the department were falsified, but that they were placed before the public in such a manner as to deceive them-that, in fact, he found that accounts amounting to $300,000 or $400,000, which ought to have been charged to the previous year, were left out altogether. As a consequence, he was able to show a very favourable statement foi the next year, because the amounts to be charged to that particular year would be only for nine months of the year, unless he waited for three or four months after the end of the year, in order to give a correct statement of the whole amount accruing to that year; and then, necessarily, the statement for the succeeding year would be a deceptive one. What I mean to say is that the department was managed under its predecessor as economically and as faithfully as it is under the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman may claim credit for a reduction of postage from a three-cent to a two-cent rate. That may be an advantage to the country, and the country may feel gratified at it. I am glad to hear his statement that he expects that at the end of the fiscal year that reduction will be found to involve no loss to the country, and that probably at the end of two years both ends will meet. I made the same recommendation to my colleagues when I was Postmaster General, but they thought the time had not arrived for a reduction to a two-cent rate. The hon. gentleman is perhaps right in saying that we could not continue to charge three cents when a letter could be carried from any part of the United States to any other part for two cents ; we had to adopt the same rate that they had. and if a deficit resulted. I believe the people would willingly make it up. But let the statement no longer be made in this House that in the last year of the Conservative government there was a deficit in the Post Office Department of $780,000. There was no such deficit. I see that the right hon. premier, in an address in Toronto, stated that the Postmaster General, by his able administration of the department, besides reducing the rate of postage from three cents to two cents, had so succeeded that there would likely be no deficit in that department, and he compared that condition of things with a deficit of $780,000


John Graham Haggart: under his predecessors, with a three-cent postage rate. The right hon. premier was entirely mistaken in that, and I shall have an opportunity of going into the details of the matter at a later stage.


Mr. CLANCY.: I would like to ask the Postmaster General if he accurately stated the deficit of 1900 in the Post Office Department, when he put it at $461,661 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I put it in the book, and am willing to be bound by the book.


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman will turn to the public accounts, he will find that it is not at all correct. He knows perfectly well that he left out the Yukon service, and that instead of the deficit being $461,000 it is $552,479. Why does he conceal that from the public ? Perhaps he will explain why he made a statement in his report different from that in the public accounts.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I hardly think my hon. friend is fair in suggesting that I am trying to conceal anything. We might as well conduct the debate in a more proper and courteous manner. In the Finance Department a day is fixed when accounts are closed. After that date, if any items come in affecting the previous year's accounts, they will not be considered by the Finance Department in balancing the year's accounts. But any other department may, for the purpose of giving a more accurate statement, carry on its balancing of the year's operations so as to include these items which affect that year, but shall have come in after the date fixed by the Finance Department. I was trying to compare the services under this administration with those under former administrations. There was no Yukon under former administrations, and we are not concealing anything. I would refer the hon. gentleman to the Postmaster General's report oni page A-XI. Referring to the total financial operations for the year, it states :
The total net revenue of the Post Office from all sources except that from the Yukon and Atlin districts exceeded that of the previous year by $1,053.25, and the total gross revenue exceeded that of the previous year by $20,391.09. On the other hand, the expenditure of the department, omitting from the comparison the special expenses incurred in the Yukon and At-iin districts, exceeded that of the previous year by $63,797.33, the excess being distributed somewhat evenly over the larger items of Post Office expenditure. It appears therefore that a considerably larger volume of postal business, sufficient to nearly balance the loss arising during the first half of the year as compared with the corresponding period of the previous year from the reduction of the postage, was handled at an increased expense of slightly over one and a half per cent.


James Clancy: How does the hon. gentleman justify submitting a table from 1896

to 1900, showing each year the net revenue, expenditure and deficit, and excluding the Yukon district ? He took exception to my stating that there was concealment, hut 1 tell the hon. gentleman that no milder language could he used to properly mark the course taken by the hon. gentleman. In his statement he has excluded two items-the Item of revenue, $21,550, and expenditure $112.368-which would make an addition to the deficit of $90,818. How does he attempt to explain this ? He said that his department had one way of keeping the accounts, and the Finance Department another. But, Sir, the accounts correspond if you take in these items. Yet the hon. minister professes to give a true statement when he makes the deficit $90,000 less than it really is. But some hon. gentlemen opposite say that we had not the Yukon in former years, and therefore, to make a proper comparison, the Yukon should he left out. Well, if the hon. gentleman had said that there was a deficit of $461,000 in 1900, but that he had not included the Yukon service, which would have increased the deficit $90,000, that might he a frank statement, but he did not. Ana if his report went to the country without the public accounts, what inference would be drawn ? The only inference that could be drawn would be that there was simply a deficit of $461,000, instead of a deficit nearly $100,000 more.
I see in a campaign sheet that the hon. gentleman boasts that he reduced the deficit in 1898-9 from nearly $800,000.


An hon. MEMBER.: What paper ?


James Clancy: It is marked ' Record of Progress and Prosperity under Liberal Rule.' This is what appears in this paper :
The Hon. Mr. Mulock, by the application of proper business principles and sound economy, cut down the deficit of about $800,000 to $47,602 in two short years-thereby making possible the reduction in the rates which quickly followed.
In the first place let me say that there was not any* such deficit. But let us suppose there was, how did he reduce it ? By an act of bad faith and repudiation.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


James Clancy: Hon. gentlemen opposite may .leer as much as they like, it was an act of repudiation and bad faith to the public. What was it ? Why, the hon. gentleman took advantage of the Queen's .iubilee to issue jubilee stamps, and these the public purchased from patriotic motives. Largely actuated by the proper sentiment which prevails in matters of that kind, the public bought these stamps, ranging in value from a half cent up to large figures. But. there was also in the minds of the people the belief that these stamps had a value. The Postmaster General, however, refused to exchange these for other stamps :
and the result is that he has unloaded, practically-beyond a few that were used- nearly half a million dollars on the public, which they hold to-day, and which the Postmaster General will not redeem. That was an act of bad faith. The hon. gentleman stated, on a former occasion in this House, that these stamps were being used. Any one can use a flve-dollar stamp to carry a letter from one post office to another if he likes, but only in this manner will the stamps be redeemed. It is not greatly to the credit of the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Mulock) to make the statement that there was a very large deficit under the former government. As was pointed out by tiie hon. member for South Lanark (Hon. Mr. Haggart), that was largely a mere myth, a mere matter of book-keeping. The Postmaster General would have us believe that he reduced that deficit by the economy and wisdom that characterized his management of the department. As a matter of fact, he did it by means which his friends cannot defend. I defy the hon. minister, for instance, to rise in his place and deny that he has been guilty of the act I charged him with a moment ago. With regard to the Yukon postal service, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if the mounted police are now performing any service that is not included in the charges made here ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: None.


William Findlay Maclean: In view of the Postmaster General's statement that the revenue of the post office about meets the expenditure, I would like to ask whether he will take into consideration the unfair taxation put upon some newspapers by way of newspaper postage. The law is not made general, but is so arranged as to impose a special tax upon newspapers in the large cities. It is time to treat all newspapers alike and remedy the grievances that now exist in connection with the hon. gentleman's department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My fion. friend (Mr. Maclean) has not indicated in detail the amendment he would suggest. I would be glad to consider any suggestions he may make.


William Findlay Maclean: What needs to be done is to make a law that will apply to all newspapers that deliver through the post office. As it is, a heavy burden is imposed upon the newspapers of Toronto and Montreal, instead of being distributed over the whole country. This is a tax that men would be justified in refusing to pay, because it is an unequal tax and unjust. If the revenue is in the condition the hon. minister says it is, I hope that he will remove this special tax upon one class of newspapers and subject all newspapers fairly to the incidence of the taxation levied by his department.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think the long and rambling statement of the Postmaster General evades the charges brought on this side of the House. It was charged that the First Minister (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Lau-rier) made statements which were not supported by the facts. He would not nave made those statements, relating as they did to the Post Office Department, without the authority of the Postmaster General. There lore, the Postmaster General cannot dismiss file matter with a wave of his hand, and the remark that he is not responsible for newspaper reports. He is responsible for the information he gives to the First Minister. Then, with regard to the statements made by the Postmaster General in East Grey. These statements were made, not only at Meaford, but at Thornbury, Sing-hampton and Feversham. After repeating these things at four different places, it will not do for the Postmaster General to tell us that he would not pay any attention to newspaper reports. He said that he had wiped out the deficit of $780,000, aud had left $1,000,000 in the pockets of the Canadian people. He tells us to-day that the deficit is $460,000. But the hon. member for Botliwell (Mr. Clancy) has proved that he should add to that $90,000, the receipts from the Yukon having been $21,000 and the expenditure $113,000. Why does he not place that where it belongs, among the expenditures of the Post Office Department V In 1898, he entered in his report an amount of $48.33 as the post office expenditure in the Yukon. Does not every member of this House know-does not every citizen know- that that is not a correct statement of the expenditure of the Post Office Department in carrying the mails into and out of the Yukon ? The department were simply utilizing the North-west mounted police for the service and not paying them. Therefore, the Postmaster General's statement is misleading and unfair to the people of Canada. It is an untrue statement to make, that the deficit for the past year was $461,000, when, including this $91,000 which ought to be included, it would amount to over $550,000. The hon. Postmaster General says that he does not propose to pay any attention to what was said in the campaign. Does the Postmaster General intend to say to the country : I am going to make speeches on the public platform, but before I begin I warn you not to place the slightest reliance on anything I may say. We are coming to a nice state of things when a minister of the Crown declares before the whole country that he will ignore utterly what he has said upon the public platform. Here is one thing that he said, as reported in a friendly newspaper
Mr. Mulock was pleased to say that many independent Conservatives of Grey county had thrown party to the winds, and had decided to vote in their country's idterests. This senti-Mr. MACLEAN.
ment was not condned to Grey county alone, but the independent vote of Canada was lining up with the Liberal party.
The province of Ontario, where the Postmaster General, the Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson), and the other ministers from that province, did their fine work, in the last parliament gave hon. gentlemen opposite a majority of a round dozen. Today there are eighteen or twenty of a majority of independent stalwart members against them. Therefore, the prediction of the Postmaster General was not verified where he had any influence or did any work.


An hon. MEMBER.: Who is the leader of that Ontario majority ?


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: Their leader, and the leader of the Liberal-Conservative party, is the hon. gentleman (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to my left, who is a credit to the party, and who, judging by appearances, such, for instance, as the division we had last night, will not be long in leading us to victory.
Mr. Mulock then put a poser by asking the electors if they endorsed Dr. Sproule on the present occasion.
Well, Sir, the poser was answered a few days later by the intelligent electors of East Grey, and they said just what the Postmaster General wants them to believe now, that they are not to believe anything said by the Postmaster General. He went on :
Dr. Sproule had never brought the advantages of Meaford before parliament.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think if he had consulted the ' Hansard' he would not have been able to make that statement, because Dr. Sproule, in season and out of season, has not confined his efforts to the county of East Grey ; while he has brought the necessities of that county to the attention of the House, he has been one of the foremost men in parliament in advocating a broad and comprehensive policy that would develop every portion of this Dominion. He said furthermore :
He could build five harbours on the former postal deficit alone. Some time ago he (Hon. Mr. Mulock) asked the town council to send him a plan of the harbour.
How generous and considerate he was.
The request was complied with, but the council had asked too little.
What a generous man! Why does he not pay his officials what is due them ? Why does he not pay the letter carriers what, by law, they are entitled to receive, instead of going up to the electors of the county of East Grey and saying to them : You electors of Meaford, why, you are not asking half as much as I would like to give you. He said :

I want to make a great harbour of Meaford. It might do for the present, but would not answer for the future. The harbour would have to be large enough to accommodate the largest ships.
The Great Eastern must sail into the harbour of Meaford, Mr. Chairman ; Meaford must be made a harbour for every vessel, not only vessels on the lakes of 6,000 tons or 8,000 tons, but a harbour that will accommodate ships of the Atlantic, which will make Meaford their headquarters, according to this generous statement of the Postmaster General, a man who is squandering the public money with bribes, who is not fail-enough to give the employees of his own department what the law says they should have. Now we will have to have revised editions from the Postmaster General of the statements that he has made, and of the statements he has put in his report, which are misleading to the extent that he has laid aside that Yukon matter. The Yukon is a part of Canada, it has been opened up in recent years, there is no reason why Yukon expenditures for the post office work should not be treated like any other expenditure, and included in the expenditures of the department, and thereby increased by the amount stated by the member for Both well (Mr. Clancy).


Mr. BRITTON.: I cannot understand the ground of stating that there is any deception or misleading statement in the report of the Postmaster General. The amount of the revenue that we are speaking of is one thing in itself, and the amount of the expenditure is another thing. You are speaking of, or comparing the amount of one year with another, and taking the different items on which comparison is made. But to talk about deception and concealment is entirely beside the mark ; because if hon. gentlemen will look at the report that they have in their hands, on page 3, they will find the whole thing. The Yukon expenditure is there, the Yukon receipts are there, and anybody can add the items of the revenue to each other and the items of expenditure to each other. All that is in the report actually in the hands of hon. members, and they have no ground whatever for talking of deception or of cooking the accounts. Hon. gentlemen will find it on page 3 of Appendix A : Statement of the revenue of the Post Office Department of the Dominion of Canada for the year ended June 30. 1900 (except that from Yukon and Atlin districts). And just below is given the revenue from the Yukon and Atlin districts.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: Read what it says about the revenue and returns of the Yukon district.


Byron Moffatt Britton: Statement of the revenue of the Post Office Department of the Dominion of Canada for the
year ended June 30, 1900, from the Yukon and Atlin districts, not included in above, $20,788.49.


David Tisdale: What is the expenditure ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: On the fourth page the expenditure is stated in the same way, giving the expenditure of the Post Office Department, but not including the Yukon and Atlin districts. Then it gives the Yukon and Atlin district services, not included in the above, $112,368.57. I am saying that there is an entire absence of deception when the figures are all given in the report in the hands of hon. members.
Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPEIt. In the items of expenditure, does the hon. gentleman find any amount put down as incurred for the use of the police, or are the police, so far as this service is concerned, paid entirely under other headings ?


Byron Moffatt Britton: The figures on this page from which I am reading are : Mail service, $80,433.06 ; salaries, $28,885.80 ; miscellaneous, $3,049.71. I am not in a position to know, nor is any one, without looking at the public accounts, whether the mail service, costing the sum 1 have mentioned, includes something for the police.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: As I understand, the Postmaster General explained last session that there is no item in the post office account for the payment of the mounted police for the services they performed as mounted police for carrying the mails, etc., in the Yukon district. They are paid entirely from another department.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The mounted police for the fiscal year that is now being discussed, beginning on June 30, 1899 and closing June 30, 1900, performed no mail service that I am aware of for the Post Office Department.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Up to 1899 my statement would be correct, that the service they performed up to July, 1899, was not charged by the Police Department against the Post Office Department.
I would be obliged if the hon. gentleman would tell me if that is correct.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have not brought any figures with me about the previous year. The subject was thoroughly discussed, and my recollection is that in in debate which took place last year upon the subject, I explained what I am trying to explain to-day, that I desired as far as possible to keep the Yukon service apart from the rest of the service in order the better to compare one administration with another. Whilst mail service was performed at the commencement by the police, it was treated as previous governments had done



in the ease of the North-west Territories. In opening up new territories the late government used the police. They had the North-west Territories fund which covered services that later on were distributed among the various departments. We followed that example.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: That practically comes to what I stated. I was not making an argument in the matter at all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think that the hon. gentleman should assume that I am admitting more than I intend to admit. There were some services which may have been included in the Yukon and some may not; some may have been performed by the police. But, it was not intended at any period to include in the general balance of the department the cost of administering the Yukon service.


Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TOPPER.: That leaves the fact as I put it. My information was from memory listening to the lion. Postmaster General's own statement. The expenditure to July, 1899, was of course very extensive in a new and unsettled country, and the police did perform a very large amount, if not the whole, of the postal service, the carriage of mails, and so on. Not all the cost of that service was charged in the public accounts to the Post Office Department; that was charged to the maintenance of the police or the vote out of which they were paid. The argument that you would make out of this is another matter.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Parliament voted money for the Yukon. I first brought in my estimates for a fixed sum, there being an item for the Yukon, and subsequently, when the estimates were being voted, it was included in the Yukon service -I think under the Department of the Interior-and the police were paid that sum, but when it appeared in the Supply Bill it was ear-marked as for the Yukon service, and in my report to parliament I think I gave the figures just as they have been given here in the text accompanying the annual statement.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I understand exactly what the hon. gentleman lias said, but, outside of the questions that have been suggested and argued today and putting aside the tu quoque argument altogether, what the country wants to get at, irrespective of party views, is the real cost of the postal service. I do not understand why the lion. Postmaster General should wish to argue, instead of giving us the exact information at this stage that we are seeking to get. Instead of justifying himself, and saying that he has done exactly as was done before, it seems an easy road to reach as to what the ser-


Mr. MULOCK.: vice has cost the country, and it is not an accurate statement, whether it occurs under Liberal or Conservative auspices, to exclude the cost of the service rendered by the police in carrying the mails from any statement as to the cost of the postal service. That was proportionately a very small affair until the Yukon was developed, but, after that, and under the hon. gentleman's regime, it was a very considerable matter. There is no question about that, because we can see what ail enormous amount the police have cost. There is this singular coincidence about that, regardless as to whether one or both parties pursued that system of making a statement to this House as to what each service lias cost, that it does not appear in regard to other departments. For instance, if the Marine Department, or the Department of Public Works, rendered a service to the Customs Department in connection with their vessels and matters of that kind, we find these charges are made by one department against the other for the service showing what each particular charge was, and what each service cost the country. It is a matter of book-keeping, it all comes out of one purse, but the statement would not be accurate, unless the books were kept in that way. That system obtains between all the departments, I think, but not in the Post Office Department, and the hon. gentleman's boast, a large part of it, perhaps, justifiable today in regard to the buoyant condition of matters in connection witli the postal service which he has been able to make, would be materially affected if lie had disclosed the whole of the facts, and had not desired to exclude from the cost of the postal service a large amount that was paid out to the police which does not appear in the statement which he has made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member for Kingston (Mr. Britton) comes to the rescue of the hon. Postmaster General, and says that any one taking up the report must, after looking over it, see where the discrepancy is, and is not likely to be misled. If any person unfamiliar with the report wished to see whether the Post Office Department was self-sustaining or not, where would he look for it ? Would he not look in the column of figures which the hon. Postmaster General has given us in his own report, and which contains the following :
The following statement shows the deficit upon the department's operations for the year ended June 30, 1896, and the revenue, expenditure and deficit for each of the succeeding years.
Would he not be likely to look there for it ? If not, then it is certainly misleading the public, because this is the only place that it should be expected to be found. He takes up the report and finds by it that there was a deficit of $461,661, for the last financial year. Any one who contradicts that, is contradicting the blue-book, which is the

only official record we can look to for information. I take up tlie public accounts and find that tliey give some of tlie items of expenditure and revenue of the Post Office Department which is not in this list. The report shows that $112,368 are left out, being the expenditure of the Yukon district, and if you add that to the other you have a deficit, not of $461,661, but of $553,000. Yet the lion. Postmaster General says that it is not misleading, and the hon. member for Kingston comes to his recue and says that no person would be misled by it. Surely in private life he would not conduct his book-keeping in that way. That part of the hon. gentleman's remarks was very interesting to me, but there was another part of the hon. Postmaster General's speech which was also interesting, and that was the acknowledgment that he would not stand by any reports of the speeches that he had made in the country during the late election. It will be rather interesting reading to the people of East Grey, who listened to him during the campaign when he told them so positively and when liis candidate told them so positively of the marvellous things he had accomplished during the time that he has been in charge of the department. This was said not at one place, but at four different places from the Monitor's report of his and Hoolman's speeches at Meaford :
Mr. Hartman briefly reviewed our postal service, which UDder the Conservative administration had a yearly deficit of over $700,000, and which, under the able management and wise economy of Mr. Mulock, had been reduced to less than $100,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Hon. gentlemen cheer that, and say hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they mean to say by that cheer that this statement is correct ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do they, or what do they mean ? Do they mean to cast ridicule upon the words of the friend who stated it ? Do they mean to say that the hon. Postmaster General was worthy of respect when he misled the people by such a statement ? Is that why they cheer ? If it is, then I can only say they cheer to their own shame.
And it would soon be self-sustaining. All this had been accomplished with the present reduction in the postal rates from 3 to 2 cents.
I do not wish to detract one iota from the credit due to the hon. Postmaster General for anything that he has accomplished. I say that he is entitled to credit for reducing the rate of postage, and for anything he has accomplished in the way of economy or 15}
good management I am willing to give him the utmost credit. But I am not willing to allow the Postmaster General to mislead the people of my constituency without trying to set them right. When he tells the House to-day that he will not be bound by that statement he then made, it will be interesting reading to the people of East Grey who listened to him in November last. One of his friends on the platform, speaking against me, said : ' This is only the statement of the member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) against the statement of the Postmaster General ; whose statement will you take ? ' He followed that up by saying that a minister of the Crown who would stand up on a platform and make that statement, if it was not correct, was unworthy of respect as a public man. But now the Postmaster General stands up here and tells us that in the month of July of that year the revenue was running behind, that it ran more behind in October and November, and yet it was in the month of November that he made this incorrect statement in East Grey. His friends then told us that if they had the report of the last financial year it would show that there was an increase in the revenue of the Post Office Department all the time, and a decrease in expenditure, and it would prove that the Post Office Department was self-sustaining. But now the Postmaster General tells the House that the revenue was decreasing at that very time. As a defence, he tells us that in the month of January of this present year, there is an increase in revenue, and that what he meant to convey to the people of Canada was that if lie took into account the present increase of revenue, he would be justified in asserting that the revenue and expenditure would balance in a short time. But does he not see that this increase in revenue took place two months after he made that misleading statement to the people of East Grey ? When he tells us to-day that he is not willing to stand by the statement he made solemnly on the platform, he makes an admission that I do not believe that any other member of his party would be guilty of. I am glad to know that the people of the country have been set right in this matter, because in future they will know just how much weight to attach to any statement made by the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock.)


Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).: It certainly does seem to me that the statement on the first page of the Postmaster General's Report is, to say the least, somewhat misleading. If any one were sufficiently familiar with the report and should carefully look through it, no doubt he might find out after some research, that the Yukon expenditure is not included, but on the page before me there is not the slightest qualification to show that this expenditure does not include the

whole of Canada. The Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) explains that for the purpose of comparison, we should not include the Yukon, because the Yukon was not included in previous years. I would like to point out to the hon. gentleman that his brother Minister of Customs (Hon. Mr. Paterson) is a sinner, if the Postmaster General himself is right, because I notice that the customs revenue for two or three years past has included very large sums from the Yukon, and last year it included no less a sum from this source than $613,191.97. 1 desire to point out to the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Mulock) that when the Minister of Customs is comparing one year with another he includes the Yukon, but when the Postmaster General goes on the platform to compare one fiscal year with another, he omits the Yukon. If the Postmaster General thinks it fair to leave out the Yukon with respect to the expenditure in his department, I trusi that he will see that his brother ministers will leave out the Yukon when they come to compare the revenue of one year with the revenue of another. The two things are exactly on the same basis, but in the one case the ministers do not charge the expenditures on the Yukon, while in the other they take good care to credit themselves with the revenue from that territory.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman from Lanark (Hon. Mr. Hag-gart) will turn to the report of the auditors who balanced up the account of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending 30th June, 1896, he will there find the following results. Over the signatures of the auditors in question, is the following :
The revenue of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896, amounted to $3,957,798.51, which, deducted from the cost of maintenance, $4,985,327.53, leaves a deficit of $1,027,529.02. Heretofore it has not been the practice to treat the amount expended under the head of civil government as a charge against the department, and were such a practice adhered to the deficit of $1,027,529.02 would be reduced by $246,376.83, leaving the outside service shortage $781,152.19.
That audit is purely and simply for services rendered for the fiscal year ending the 30th June, 1896, and it does not include any disbursement for service prior to that year. That was all carefully eliminated by the auditors, and the sum given represents the gross cost of the service for the year, on the theory that you pay and charge each year for the service rendered in that year. If the old deficit, rolled up year after year, amounting to between $600,000 and $700,000, were to have been added, instead of the auditors reporting a deficit of $781,000, they would have reported a deficit of nearly twice that. This deficit of 1896 does not include any overlapping. It does not include any five quarterly expenses on con-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
tracts or anything like that. It is simply for the actual year 1896, and that was the shortage for that year, according to these auditors.


Hon. Mr. HAG  GART@: I will take the
published accounts of the Post Office Department of revenue and expenditure, and I suppose it will be accepted as a final settlement of our dispute on this matter. In 1896 the gross revenue of the department was $4,005,890.77 ; net revenue, $2,964,014.13. The deductions from revenue were $1,041,876.54, and paid by check, $3,593,647. I would like to know what changes were made in the law when we went out-in July, 1896, if I remember rightly-leading to increased receipts in the department in 1897. The gross revenue in that year was $4,311,242 ; the net revenue was $3,202,938 ; the deductions from revenue amounted to $1,158,840 ; and the amount paid by check was $3,575,411. All the possible economies for which the hon. gentleman can take credit must be in the deductions from revenue. Of course, he did not alter the amount of the receipts of the post offices in the different cities, towns and villages. His reductions must solely be in the amounts paid by check. Was there any alteration in the law or in anything else for which he could take credit by which the revenue would be more buoyant ? If he takes credit for reductions in the payments for carrying mails, these reductions must be found in the gross payments made by check ; and the difference between that year and the preceding year was the difference between $3,7S9,000 and $3,575,000. His gross revenue for 1899 is $4,325,000 and his net revenue $3,182,000, or $400,000 less than that of the preceding year ; the deductions from revenue amount to $142,000, or only $16,000 less than those of the preceding year; and the amount paid on contracts, notwithstanding the deductions from revenue, is greater by $6,000 than that of the preceding year. The amount paid by check is $3,381,000. Now, we will take the year 1900. The gross revenue is $4,345,822 ; the net revenue is $3,183,984 ; the deductions from revenue are $1,161,000, or more by nearly $20,000 than those of the preceding year, although the rate was nearly the same ; and the amount paid by check was $3,645,646. These are the figures of the hon. gentleman's own report, and I would like him to explain to me where his economies are, and what his alterations in the management of his office have been to cause those economies. What are the reductions made between 1896 and 1897 7 The only possible reductions would be in the amounts paid to contractors for carrying the mails, and these, I will venture to say, could not have been more than $40,000 or $50,000. Therefore, we have this misleading statement put before the country, that by some act of the Postmaster

General since he came into office, a deficit of $780,000 was virtually turned into something that was not a deficit at all. The hon. gentleman admits now a deficit of nearly $500,000, which he says was caused by a reduction from the three-cent to the two-cent rate. Very likely that is so ; but there is a deficit of $500,000 ; and 'the hon. gentleman promises that three or four years from now the accounts will perhaps balance. I doubt that very much. If they do, it will be entirely owing to the prosperity of the country. It may be that the reduction in the rate of postage does not actually cause a reduction of revenue, as people may send more letters ; but the fact remains that in the payments made by the department, which is the true test of economical management, there is no such saving as the hon. gentleman states.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the hon. Postmaster General tell the House whether he has under consideration an improvement of the parcel delivery system, and also, whether it is his intention to unify the postal notes and the money orders ? Of all the public *departments the Post Office Department is the one to which the people are constantly looking for improvements. I believe great improvements can be made in the parcel delivery system, and still further improvements in the transmission of small sums of money by mail, and these are certainly divisions of public service which can constantly be expanded for the benefit of the people. I trust that the post office will go ahead of the express companies and cheapen in every possible way the transmission of parcels and small sums of money.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: With regard to an improved system of handling parcels, we are now establishing parcel post boxes, and we are endeavouring to make use of the automobile system to facilitate the collection and distribution of mail matter, including, of course, parcels. Last fall we bought two or three locomobiles, aud we are having made six quadracycles for the city of Toronto. With reference to postal notes and money orders, I cannot say that we are considering at the present moment the subject of abolishing either one or the other, or amalgamating the two classes of service. They are very different in their character. The postal note is for the transmission of small sums not exceeding $5, and is somewhat in the nature of a check. The money order is a different thing altogether, the name of the payee not appearing on the face of it, and the order not being payable except to the person named in the advice note which is sent by the postmaster who issues the order to the postmaster on whom the order is made. Whether in time they can be united into *one document remains to be seen. In the United States, they are getting up an order
now that looks very much like a fusion of the postal note and the money order. A few months ago an officer of the United States postal department came to Canada and had an interview with our officers on the subject of a free interchange of money orders, and negotiations are now going on with the view of facilitating that 'business. They have sent to us a form of order, which looks to me very much like a fusion of the postal note and money order. They have no postal notes, and their money order differs very materially from ours ; and as ours has been in force in its present form so many years, I hesitate to make any material change by abolishing it and adopting instead something like the postal note or check payable to the person named in the face of the document itself.


William Findlay Maclean: With regard to parcel delivery, there is great room for improvement. I need only point to what has been done in England to-day to show how the public can be accommodated by the parcel delivery system in force there. That system can be extended to Canada, and the people will be willing to see it developed, and, if necessary, have the government take over the business done by the express companies. That business could be done through the Post Office Department, and the country will justify the Postmaster General going fully into the matter and greatly developing the parcel delivery system in connection with the post office.


Nathaniel Clarke Wallace: I think the government is, perhaps, going too far in the direction indicated by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean). It is carrying parcels of goods to all parts of Canada at rates which are four or five, and sometimes seven or eight, times less than those charged by the express companies. Either the express companies-companies chartered and under the control of the Dominion parliament-are making exorbitant charges or the Post Office Department is carrying parcels for almost nothing. I do not think that the government is doing right in carrying goods ail over this country at such reduced rates-less than the cost of carriage. The carriage of letters and newspapers is the purpose for which the Post Office Department was organized, and if the department besides decides to carry parcels of merchandise, it should charge at least the cost of carriage, which it is not doing to-day. The department is allowing the business of this country to be turned into wrong channels. Take those large departmental stores in Toronto, for which this department is carrying goods thousands of miles at utterly ridiculous rates. The government has no right to carry these goods for departmental stores, which enter into competition with country storekeepers who are doing legitimate, proper business. By this policy the govern-

ment is destroying mercantile industries in all parts of this Dominion.
At six o'clock, the Committee took recess.
After Recess.
Committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. FOWLER.: Before this item passes, I would like to ask the Postmaster General by whose advice he is guided in the dismissal of postmasters and in changing post offices. I do not know whether it has been the case in other counties besides that which 1 have the honour to represent, but, in that county since the election of the 7th of November last, and just previous to the election, a great many changes in post offices were made. Many postmasters, who were very competent officials, and had been for many years discharging their duties with credit to themselves and benefit to the community have been dismissed, and without any charge as far as the public know, without any investigation, having taken place. From my place in the House, I have asked questions with respect to two of these officials, and have received the somewhat curt answer of the minister that it was done upon his own responsibility, and that these men were partisans. Not only have postmasters been dismissed in this manner, but post offices have been moved from one part of a community to another, greatly to the detriment of the service, and post offices have even been closed up. 1 presume, though I do not know for certain, that the Postmaster General has been guided in the past by the advice of the gentleman who represented the county that I have the honour now to represent. When it became my fortune, whether good or ill, to replace that gentleman in this House, it was greatly to his annoyance, and he has sought to wreak his spite, on these office holders throughout the county; and not only upon the office holders, but upon the people in the county where the post offices have been changed or closed up. I have in mind a small place in a country district, Donegal, a name familiar to many of the gentlemen of this House, situated in the parish of Waterford, another name that is familiar. The post office there inis been closed up entirely, and I understand that the government are going to open another post office in a neighbouring district where there is one already. As a matter of fact, this is a mountainous district and a high mountain intervenes between these two places. Therefore, the people of Donegal-and there are ten or twelve heads of families to be served by this office-will be obliged to go two or three miles, and to climb the mountain to reach the other office. That is a great hardship. It seems to me that post offices are not placed for the benefit or the advantage, or the interest of the friends of the party in Mr. WALLACE.
power, but that the Post Office Department is intended for the benefit of all Canadians irrespective of party. It seems small to gratify spite by taking it out of these poor people in the remote district. Life for them is hard at the best; give them what advantage you can. If they are to be deprived of postal accommodation, it is a very great hardship indeed. I trust, therefore, the minister will take the advice of his responsible officers, especially the post office inspector, who is directly charged with the direction of these matters and not the advice of irresponsible parties, even though they are supporters of the government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Though we have lost a good colleague in losing the predecessor of the hon. member of Kings, I have to congratulate the House on having an accession to its members in the person of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler), who has just spoken. I think the case which he has made-perhaps, I may be permitted to say, from very insufficient material- justifies one in assuming that, with a good case, he would make a most powerful argument. The hon. gentleman exclaims against l our having closed up Donegal post office, and says it was a great offence against the pub-I lie. Then he complains because we have opened a post office near it, and in a more convenient place. I cannot pretend to charge my mind with all the details of the removal or change of postmasters. If my hon. friend (Mr. Fowler) has any grievance or any particular case which he thinks ought to be explained, 1 shall only be too pleased if he will direct my attention to it in a way that will enable me to come with the exact information necessary to reply to him. With reference to Donegal. I cannot pretend to give from recollection the circumstances and the reasons connected with changes in postmastership or location of offices. But, I may say that if, for example, a post office happened to be located in a place unsuitable for the public, that would seem a sufficient ground for the change. That may have been the reason for the change in the case of Donegal. My hon. friend says that that closing involved hardship to a number of people. I suppose that the number of patrons of that office, to some extent at least, would be indicated by the revenue of the office. If that affords the Committee any information whatever, I may say that the returns for the fiscal year ending 30tli June, 1900, indicates a gross revenue from that office of $3, or somewhat less than a cent a day


George William Fowler: If I did not make myself quite clear to the Postmaster General when I first spoke, it must be accounted for by my youth and inexperience. The hon. gentleman was so good as to congratulate me, and I must return the compliment. It is marvellous that a gentleman at the head

of a department so great as this should be able to carry in his mind the petty details of every post office. But, considering that we have had certain statements of the hon. gentleman challenged in this House, I would like to have something a little more definite than the hon. gentleman's ipse dixit as to the revenue.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am speaking from the official report.


George William Fowler: Suppose that it is true, and that the revenue from this post office is not large, yet the hon. gentleman cannot deny that it served a number of families. And shall it be said that justice is not to be given to these people, that they shall be denied postal accommodation, because the revenue of their office is not so large as some others ? It seems to me, that the poor should have as fair treatment as is given to any.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George William Fowler: I am glad to hear that, applauded by the hon. gentlemen opposite. It is not altogether in accordance with their course, but I am glad to hear them applaud the sentiment. Whether a post office is needed in any particular locality or not should not be decided merely by the question of revenue. I admit that should have something to do with it, but it should not be the only point considered. The number of people to be served should be regarded as a very important point. However, I am glad to know that the Postmaster General will look into these matters, and, in the future, will be more guided by his responsible officer than by those gentlemen who happen to have suffered defeat at the polls.


John Graham Haggart: Referring to the subject we were discussing before the House rose, the deficit of 1895-6, I promised to look into the subject. I have done so, and I think I can make it so clear that the Postmaster General or the Prime Minister will not, after this, make the statement that there was a deficit of $780,000 in 1893-6. From the figures that appear, it must have struck the Postmaster General, if not some of his assistants or deputies, that such a deficit was abnormal. The hon. gentleman, to confirm his statement, read a report of two auditors, experts, who, he thought, proved his case. I am going to base my statement entirely upon tlieir report, and I can prove conclusively to any gentleman who listens to me, that his statement is most fallacious. I do not blame the Postmaster General, because he may have been deceived by the figures, but any officer of his department that furnished such figures to him, ought never after to retain the confidence of the Postmaster General. The report is signed by Mr. W. H. Cross and Mr. W. F. Munro, the two auditors, and this is the conclusion of their report :
At the beginning of the fiscal year 1895-6, as the result of the deficits of previous years, there were outstanding liabilities of the department in the shape of unpaid accounts to the amount of $616,712.99.
That is not for the year 1895-6, but for the previous years.
At the close of the fiscal year 1895-6, the liabilities of the department in excess of all parliamentary appropriations applicable thereto amounted to the sum of $685,447.63. Thus the liabilities had increased during the year 1895-6 to the extent of $68,734.04.
Instead of the deficit of that year being $685,447.03, if he will look at the report of his auditors, he will see the deficit that year was only $0S,734.04.
The actual cost of the maintenance of the department in all its branches for the year 1895-6 was $4,985,327.53. The revenue of the Post Office Department for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1896, amounted to the sum of $3,957,798.51, which, deducted from the above-named gross cost of maintenance, namely, $4,985,327, leaves a deficit of $1,027,529.
From which has to be deducted, as the auditors put it correctly, the amount which has never been charged to the expenditure of the post office, the amount expended on civil government at headquarters in Ottawa. If the amounts that I had mentioned before dinner as overlapping, had been deducted, that deficit, instead of bein' $780,000, would be over $1,000,000. It is a'| amount which he deducts from his returns, and which was not deducted in the post office returns.
Heretofore it has not been a practice to treat the amount expended under the head of Civil Government as a charge against the department, and were such practice adhered to, the deficit of over $1,027,529.02 would be reduced by $246,376.83, leaving the outside service shortage $781,152.19.
From that deduct the amount which the auditors report, with the amount of the years previous to 1895-6, $616,712.99, and it leaves an actual deficit in 1895-6 of $164,439, instead of $781,152. It is so clear that I wonder the hon. the Postmaster General ventures the statement ; I wonder that the hon. the Prime Minister ventured the statement. Is he to include in the expenditure of 1895-6 all these experts say were deficits of the previous years ? The only amount to be deducted is, as I stated before, $68,734. The hon. gentleman may laugh, he may try to explain it, but there is no explanation possible, except that the actual deficit of the Post Office Department in that year was $164,439 This is proved conclusively by the report of his auditors, and I hope the hon. gentleman, in making comparisons again - he is very chary of them in this House-in making comparisons in the country, must
4G3

never say again that there was a deficit of $780,000 in 1895-6 ; because the receipts and expenditures balanced in those years, and show conclusively that instead of the deficit being of that amount, it was really only $164,000.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend has entirely failed to appreciate the report of the auditors. This report deals with two perfectly distinct transactions. It shows that for many years there had grown up in the Post Office Department a practice of exceeding the appropriation for the year, and if the appropriation was not suffi-to pay the expenditure fer the year, then the shortage was taken out of the appropriation of the succeeding year. This practice went on for many years, and when we took office we found an accumulation of arrears amounting to over $600,000. For example, my hon. friend says that at the commencement of the fiscal year 1895-6 these accumulations amounted to some $600,000, and at the close of the year to $668,000. That is merely the transaction as between a vote of parliament and the expenditure. It is an entirely separate transaction from the question of how much it cost to manage the department for a year, and what the revenue of the department for that year was. Surely, I am not to blame for what happened before we took office. The hon. gentleman admits that for the year 1895-6 they ran behind the appropriation by $6S,000. Well, for the fiscal year ending 1st of July, 1895, according to the figures with which I have nothing to do, there was a deficit of $707,000. My hon. friend will find it in the books ; he won't hold me responsible for this book of
1894-	5. The book he quoted from shows that he began the fiscal year 1895-6 with a deficit on the previous year of $707,000 ; that is, your revenue was that much short of paying up your expenditure. Will the hon. gentleman explain to me by what process of reform they reconstructed that department in that last sad year of their administration, so that they came out with a deficit of only one hundred thousand odd dollars ? No, he won't do that, but instead of that, he tells me, and tells me truly, that he exceeded the appropriation in the year
1895-	6 by $68,000. Add that $68,000 by whi_eh he overrun the appropriation in 1895-6. to the rate of shortage amounting to $707,000. for the previous year, and vou have got $775,000, or within some $4,000 or $5,000 of the deficit the auditors bring out. Let my hon. friend keep quiet.


John Graham Haggart: I am quiet.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is one thing to deal with appropriations ; it is another thing to deal with the earning power of a department and the cost of running it. Parliament votes a certain sum *of money to carry on the department. The Mr. HAGGART.
paragraph to which the hon. gentleman has referred has given proof of the vicious system of the late administration, who spent more each year than they disclosed to parliament, and who, instead of coming down frankly to parliament and asking parliament to vote the shortage failed to disclose it. I do not say it was intentional. I think it was very bad book-keeping owing to the loose state of affairs in the department, but there was the fact that year after year they were spending more than they had the courage to ask parliament to vote, and the result was that when the 1st July came each year, they had to pay out of the year's vote, beginning on the 1st July, an enormous sum of money for debts and services of the past which sum should have been available to carry on the services for the current year. That paragraph that the hon. gentleman has alluded to, shows that at the beginning of the fiscal year 1895-6 there was a deficit of $600,000, representing debts which should have been paid out of the provision of the previous year, but for which there was no money, and which they paid out of the service of 1895-6. They went out that year owing $668,000. When I come down here and ask for money to carry on the service from the 1st July next until the end of the fiscal year, it is not right, and it is contrary to constitutional pi-inciple, that I should be at liberty to take money voted to carry on the servic from the 1st July next to the end of the year, and expend it in paying for services nowbeing performed, and that paragraph in the Auditor's report is an illustration of the loose practice which had grown up and continued for years. If my hon. friend wants some comfort I will give it to him. He has made a mistake; he does not understand this report, and when he comes to think it over to-morrow, he will be surprised that he committed himself to such a view of it. He and I are excellent friends. I know he is incapable of suggesting a thing that he does not believe to be correct. I know that he is speaking conscientiously of what he believes to be the result of this audit. All the same he is entirely in error. I think he will not contradict me again after he has thought it over. I will ask my hon. friend to take the Auditor General's Report, and to take the previous reports, and I will go over them with him, and if he is wrong he will admit it, and if I am wrong I will admit it. But, there is no way of getting over the fact that we receive so much money from the public for the service we perform, and that we pay so much out for the service performed, and that the balance is so much. That is what the auditors tell us in regard to the year 1895-6. They say that for that year the Receiver General received from the public as revenue $3,957,798.51. That was the gross amount the Receiver General obtained from the public.

They gave us the gross revenue from the public for that year, and the gross cost for carrying on the service for that year, $4,985,327.


John Graham Haggart: No, no : $600,000 of old debt.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The. hon. gentleman does not understand anything about It. The old debt was paid by a special vote of parliament. The Finance Minister came down to parliament, reported that debt, and parliament voted a special sum of some $680,000 to wipe out the debt. It was voted to clear off the old debt over and above this $4,900,000.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What is the difference between the receipts and the expenditure ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The difference between the receipts and expenditure for that year was $1,027,529.02. and that includes the cost of the inside service. Deducting the cost of the inside service, amounting to $246,376.83, it leaves a shortage between the gross revenue of that year and the gross cost of the service of that year of $781,152.19, the deficit for the year 1895-6.


John Graham Haggart: I am sorry that I cannot make the Postmaster General understand what is perhaps the simplest thing In arithmetic. Surely the hon. gentleman has to ask himself what were the receipts of the post office that year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have given them to you.


John Graham Haggart: What was the expenditure ? In the expenditure is this $616,000 included ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, not a copper of it. [DOT]


John Graham Haggart: It is included ; every 'copper of it is included. The $780,000 is included in the amount, and the way he makes this $780,000 of deficit is by including the $616,000 Let the hon. minister look at the figures and he will tell you at once that you are wrong. The hon. gentleman took a vote to pay off the $616,000 or the $680,000, which was simply to correct the book-keeping. The hon. gentleman talks about an expenditure in the post office more than the amount voted for it. It has always been so. The amount voted for the post office is never fixed exactly at the amount which is required for the service, because the Post Office Act places the whole of the moneys received by the department, along with the amount voted by parliament, at the disposal of the Postmaster General. I cannot understand why it is that the hon.
Postmaster General cannot see it. It is impossible that he should not do so if he looks at the figures from 1879 down to 1901. The auditors have included in the amounts to be deducted from that four million odd dollars the deficits of the previous years, $016,000 and $684,000, which leaves a deficit of $780,000. but. if you deduct from that $616,000 which belongs to previous years, the deficit in the post office is only $164,000. I will ask the hon. gentleman to get some expert book-keeper to look into it again, and he will find that my statement is literally and verbally correct to the cent. There is no mystery about it. It is one of the simplest sums in calculation that could be imagined. The simple question which the hon. minister (Sir Louis Davies) asked him is this : In the deductions or in the amount charged for expenditure, is the $616,000 charged ? If it is charged, the deficit of the previous year is included in the year 1895. I stake my reputation on the statement that the $616,000 is the deficit of the previous year entering into the calculations of the years 1895-6.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Let me tell the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) how he operated in 1894. His own report shows that in 1894 his expenditure was $3,421,203 ; his revenue, $2,773,507, and the deficit $647,696. If he sends to the library and gets his own report he will find that is correct. Another year went by and I will take his own figures again. The auditors say that the vicious system had been adopted of not getting a large enough vote and carrying a shortage forward and taking the deficit out of the succeeding appropriation. The same thing happened in 1895. Leaving out the appropriations which only appeared to confuse the hon. gentleman, and taking simply the revenue and expenditure, we have in 1894 a shortage of $647,000, and, according to his own figures for 1895, a shortage of $707,000 ; an increased deficit in one year of $60,000, and again the auditors say that the deficit in 1896 "was $781,000, The hon. gentleman says that for 1895-6 there was only a deficit of $100,000, if so will he explain how he can justify a deficit of $707,000 in the previous year and $647,000 in the year previous to that again. What reforms did he bring into effect to reduce this deficit which was steadily growing. Surely the hon. gentleman would not discredit the skill of these auditors. One of the auditors, Mr. Cross, is known by my hon. friend from East York (Mr. Maclean), and the other, Mr. Munro, is also known to gentlemen opposite, and no one will question either their skill or their integrity. They had no object except to bring out the actual results. I have every confidence in the accuracy of their audit, and I am sure when my hon. friend (Hon. Mr. Haggart) thinks over the matter he will accept it too.


John Graham Haggart: I accept it entirely, and my argument is based altogether on the report of the auditors. If the Postmaster General lets the Minister of Finance express his opinion on the question, I will be perfectly satisfied.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: On page XXI11 of the Postmaster General's Report of 1894, the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Haggart) will find the following : Net revenue, $2,773,507.71, and on page XXIV he will find the total expenditure by check, $3,421,000. Deduct the revenue from the expenditure and you have the deficit for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1894. I need not explain to the hon. gentleman, as a former Postmaster General, that our revenue is to some extent always depleted from the fact that postmasters who are paid by way of commission have their salaries deducted from the gross revenue, so what we get is the net revenue and the balance is the same.


Mr. TAYLOR.: I see by this vote that the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) asks for an increase of $78,714.55. I wish to ask him if it is his intention to put the post office service in the rural districts-I refer to my own county particularly-in the same state of efficiency as it was before he took office in 1890. In my county where we had a daily mail service through several of the most populous districts before 1896, the Postmaster General immediately on taking office reduced it to a tri-weekly and in some cases to a bi-weekly service. I hear complaints from one end of the county to the other as to the poor mail service at present. An hon. member here complained of a post office being closed in his constituency which served seven or eight families, but in my constituency Marble Rock post office was closed, a post office which for the last twenty years supplied 70 or 80 families. But simply because the postmaster was a Conservative and the mail carrier a Conservative and there were no Liberals living in that part of the country to get the job, Marble Rock post office was closed up and these 70 or 80 families have now to go seven or eight miles to Gananoque to get their mails. I ask him whether it is his intention to restore that office. Another post office in my constituency was closed up, and I put a question on the paper in reference to it, and the Postmaster General gave me the same answer that he gave to my hon. friend, that it was closed because it produced only $6 or $8 of revenue-a statement which I know was not correct; the revenue was more than the amount stated. As soon as I made the statement in the House, my late opponent, Mr. Fredenburg, came to Ottawa and represented to the Postmaster General that there were a few Grits in that district and that the post office must be restored immediately, and it was restored.


William Mulock: 


An hon. MEMBER.: That is right.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman says that is right, but is it right that 70 or 80 families must go without their postal service because they are Conservatives ? Is the Post Office Department of this country ^o be run on political lines ? No doubt the Post Office Department ought to make a better showing financially if the service has been reduced in every rural electoral district as it has been in South Leeds. In view of his getting this large amount, I ask the Postmaster General to restore the service there to the same position in which it was when he took office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am most desirous of maintaining the efficiency of the post offices in every part of Canada, even in those parts which have the misfortune to be represented as my hon. friend's constituency is. He has called my attention for the first time to a number of supposed shortcomings in his constituency. He alluded to the case of Soperton. I recall the name of that place, but I do not remember my hon. friend calling my attention to the other deficiencies to which he now refers, and I must rebuke him as an active member of this House for having during past years neglected the interests of his constituents in failing to do so. I assure him that it is only necessary for him to present a good case, and it will receive fair treatment. I remember a case being made out which warranted the closing of a post office of the name of Soperton, though I do not remember it sufficiently to discuss it. My hon. friend says, no doubt correctly, that on the argument of Mr. Fredenburg it was reopened. I presume he made a good case, and it was quite right for me to yield to his argument ; and if my hon. friend makes a good case, he will receive the same treatment. I can only say that each case will be dealt with on its merits. I do not think it will be found that any service has been withheld that should not be withhold or granted that should not be granted for any political reasons. I regard the mail service as something which the people have a right to, apart from political considerations. My hon. friend has only to present a proper case and he will get justice.


George William Fowler: On looking over the report of the Post Office Department, I find that there are over 100 post offices in this Dominion with a revenue of less than $4. When the hon. Postmaster General made the statement he did. I observed that the hon. member for Guysborough (Mr. Fraser', was very vociferous in his applause ; and on looking up the report I find that in that hon. gentleman's constituency there is a post office which only had a revenue last year of $1, and that post office is still flourishing. I may say that there are post offices with-

out any revenue at all. In the county of Antigonish alone there are twenty post offices with a revenue under $4. There is one post office in that county with a revenue of $2 in which the postmaster receives $20. It seems to me strange that this doctrine of economy should be applied to the poor people who have the misfortune to live in that part of the county of King's to which I have referred, and the misfortune not to see eye to eye with hon. gentlemen opposite; but from the kindly manner in wmch the hon. Postmaster General referred to me, I feel satisfied that he will consult his inspector in the province of New Brunswick, who is a very decent man and a competent officer, before he makes such changes in the future as he has made in the past.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the Postmaster General, and also the Minister of Finance, who holds the purse strings, if every account connected with the postal service belonging to a particular fiscal year is charged up to that year, and if there are no arrears by reason of overlapping. If they are prepared to say that in no case does that happen, it will greatly simplify this discussion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As the hon. gentleman has referred to me, I may say that it is most desirable that the accounts of one year shall include the payments for that year, and as far as possible that is done in all the departments. I am not prepared to say absolutely that in every case it is done to the last dollar ; but. in order that it may be done, our Audit Act provides that accounts may be kept open for a reasonable period, and we may be able to extend that period for the purpose of getting accounts in from a distance. I think it will not be incorrect to say that that is the practice of the departments generally to-day. My hon. friend the Postmaster General held that view very strongly, and always assured me that he was carrying it out in his department.


James Clancy: That Icems, no doubt, to be the theory, but we happen to have the practice as is disclosed by the Auditor General's Report of last year. On a single page I find half a dozen cases of payments made on contracts performed in 1899. If the hon. gentleman will look on page S-11 he will find one ease there, partly made up of services in 1900, and partly of services in 1899. On the next page, he will find six cases. I have not examined the Act very closely, but just glancing over it, I find a half dozen cases on the next page of a similar character. It is perfectly clear that whatever the theory of the hon. gentleman may be, the practice has not been carried out. I am not finding fault with that in any sense, because I can well understand the Impossibility of preventing some over-


George William Fowler: lapping from year to year, but when hon. gentlemen pretend to say that they square it all off at the end of the year, and pay every account, the facts are entirely against them. No doubt there were balances in 1896 from 1895, and no doubt there are also balances unpaid belonging to 1899 that were paid in 1900, and in 1900 that were paid in 1901.


Mr. McGOWAN.: I find on page 14 of the Postmaster General's Report that A. Gale was paid $122.85 for carrying the mails from the railway station to Alma. Well, Mr. Gale has not been there for several years. At one time he lived there and carried the mails from the station to the post office, but he has not lived there for several years. He lives thirty or forty miles further away. I did not know the hon. gentleman was carrying on business in that way. It looks very much as if this contract was farmed out.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The contractors for carrying the mail are not required to personally perform the work nor to live in any particular locality. All that is required of them is to have the work performed to the satisfaction of the inspector of the district. Their case is different altogether from that of persons appointed to positions, the duties of which they are supposed personally to discharge. In such cases there is objection to farming out the work, but that objection does not apply to mail contractors, and I never knew that point to be taken before.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Before this item passes. I would like to call the attention of hon. gentlemen opposite to this consideration. I think we have evinced on this side, since the beginning of the session, a desire to advance the work of the session and proceed with the estimates in a business-like way. But if we are put to such straits as we have been this afternoon in order to obtain information, I am afraid our task will be more protracted than we anticipate. The discussion arose greatly out of a question I put as to what the deficit was during the past year in the Post Office Department, and reluctantly the hon. minister admitted that there was a deficit of $461,000. Then it took an hour and a half of discussion before we found out-and it was due in great part to the criticism of my hon. friend from Bothwell (Mr. Clancy) that we did find out-that to that deficit must necessarily be added the sum of $90,009 on the service in the Yukon district. That is now admitted by the hon. the Postmaster General. But if we take the statements made by him during the last election and spread broadcast through the province of Quebec, there was a deficit in the postal service in 1895-6 of over $700,000. This statement, my hon. friend from Lanark (Mr. Haggart),

lias shown this afternoon to be absolutely incorrect. Instead of a deficit of $700,000, my hon. friend has shown that the deficit was $164,439, and not one cent more. Then the hon. the Postmaster General stated at a public meeting in East Grey, not only that the deficit in 1S95-6 was $700,000, but that we would soon reach a period when we would have no deficit at all. In the early part of the afternoon, I questioned the hon. gentleman as to how far we were suffering from a deficit at present, and he would give no answer save the general observation that probably this year there would be no deficit at all. I think the hon. gentleman must admit that a great deal of time has been lost in arriving at the facts. And when I saw my hon. friend the member for Kingston (Mr. Britton), with his extremely outwardly virtuous appearance, rising in this House and saying he could not see-just like a man who was exhibiting a juggler-where there was any deception, I must say the lack of frankness displayed was significant of anything but business methods by a business administration. It would have been a great deal better for the hon. the Postmaster General to have come down and told us exactly, at the very inception, what the amount of the deficit really is in a service, in which there must necessarily be a considerable deficit, if it is properly carried on. And the three or four hours that we have taken to find out the facts and place them before the country might have been better occupied in remedying certain individual grievances which have been pointed out by several members and met by the Postmaster General in a very flippant spirit. We had the hon. member for North Leeds (Mr. Taylor) pointing out that a certain post office had been closed and then reopened on the representation of Mr. Predenburg, and then closed again. Why, we have no explanation from the Postmaster General, who simply got up and smilingly told us that Mr. Predenburg had made out a good case, and that no doubt if the hon. member for Leeds would come before him again with a certain case decided not long ago, and make out a good claim, he too would have justice. If we are to get through the estimates with expedition, we require a little more frankness on the part of ministers of the Crown. I have confidence in the Minister of Public Works that when we come to the estimates of his department, we will have less trouble in arriving at the basic figures and dealing with those estimates promptly and in a business-like manner.
I find an increase of $49,523.88 in salaries and allowances, outside service. Is the Postmaster General disposed to give us some information as to what that increase consists of ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This increase is arrived at in this manner
Increase.
674 increases	
$23,470	PO38 additions to staff	
14,960	0037 appointments from labour class_____	16,880	00Increased mileage	
3,555	00Short estimate, 1900-1	
1,658	88

Decrease.
Increases voted for 1900-1, withheld.. $ 1,320 00
Mr. James, special agent at Skagway,
provided for in Yukon vote	 800 00
Difference between salaries of persons promoted or retired from service and salaries of persons appointed to fill vacancies thus created	 8,880 00

Increase	 $49,523 88


George Taylor: The hon. Postmaster General charged me with dereliction of duty in not bringing to his attention the matter of the closing of Marble Rock post office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not speak of that particularly.


George Taylor: If the hon. gentleman will turn to the ' Hansard ' of May 17, 1898, page 5713, he will find this :
I know that the Marble Rock post office in my constituency served fifty families, but the postmaster was a Conservative, and the mail carrier was a Conservative, and the only way the Postmaster General could dispose of them was to close the post office, and he did so. These fifty families have to travel miles to the nearest post office for their mail, and although he gives them a reduction of a cent on their letters, some of them have to spend a whole day going to the post office. I have received two letters from prominent men in my constituency in reference to the postal service the Postmaster General is now giving in that country. Mr. R. Harvey, miller of Lyndhurst, writes as follows: - ' George Taylor, Esq., M.P. :
' Our people of Ellisville, Long Point and Sweet's Corners are all up in arms about the change of mail routes. It is a shame to withdraw the daily mail from that section. Mail going to these post offices now lays over in Lyndhurst from Fridity until Monday. Here are three cheese factories and a well-settled community of intelligent people placed in a worse condition than if they were in the backwoods.'
For years these people enjoyed a daily mail, but now they have got it only twice a week. On that route there are four cheese factories, and a thickly settled community; they are worse off for mail service now than if they were in the backwoods.
So, it will be seen that I brought this matter to the attention of the Postmaster General over two years ago. Marble Rock post office, which served fifty families, was closed, and no steps have been taken yet to reopen it. The mail route, changed from daily to triweekly, remains the same as before. A thickly settled community are served with a tri-weekly mail, and have been for two years.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: 


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 understand my hon. friend to enumerate a great many defects in the management of the post office with regard to the mail services and other matters. He mentioned Marble Rock and the change of mail route, hut his observations were general enough to cover much more than these two cases. He spoke of reduction of services and discontinuance of services


George Taylor: And I mentioned two cases.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Having mentioned two cases, the hon. gentleman has done his duty with regard to these. But, if there are other grievances, has he done his duty with regard to them ?


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Am I right in understanding that most of the increase of $49,000 is required for the administration of the post office in the Yukon territory, in connection with salaries, &e. ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: This has nothing to do with the services mentioned on page 70 of the estimates ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: What is the object of the Post Office Department in making this rather extraordinary division ? For instance, in bringing-down the items in the estimates, I notice in the vote we are considering that the items give the offices, ending with Vancouver, and so on, and not including the Yukon. There is a note that on page 70. services in the Yukon are provided for. Turning to page 70, we find this item, which I suppose to be the one covering the postal services
Government of the Territory-Salaries
and expenses in connection with the
administration of the territroy.. $270,000
Turning to the Auditor General's Report, we find that the post office proportion in 18991900 for post office salaries, &c., the same items, and the same services as are given elsewhere, is included under this item of a million dollars. What is the reason, or is there any good reason, for the paying out of this extent for this branch of the post office, and putting it under an entirely different head, such as I have mentioned- the administration of the Yukon territory ? Is there any advantage in this ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Yukon is an addition to the territory we have to administer. The government of which my hon. friend (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) was a member, had to do with it only to a very limited extent. It seems advisable. in order to be able to compare service with service and administration with administration that the clear line of service should be kept intact. You can, if you like, add the shortage of the Yukon to the general shortage for the Dominion. It does not cloud the case, but rather makes it clearer for the purpose of comparing the cost of service.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: Then these estimates, instead of being prepared for business purposes, are prepared for hustings purposes. That argument is the smallest kind of political clap-trap. The facts, when looked at, have to do with the post office service, and so far as bearing the burden goes and finding out what is spent for the service, it matters not whether it is for the Yukon or for the provinces on the Atlantic coast. Surely, business men would expect to find all these services which are managed by the Postmaster General under the head of the post office estimates. The hon. gentleman tells this Committee that he has arranged a heading apart from the post office estimates under which is to be found an item of $100,000-and it will be a growing item, no doubt. And the object is that he may have the satisfaction of making comparisons with his predecessor's figures and showing to his own advantage what would not be to his advantage if he told the whole story instead of telling only half. I do not think that is creditable to the Postmaster General or fair to this Committee.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think the hon. gentleman will find his criticism will apply with equal force to other services and to other portions of the estimates. The purpose of putting this on page 70 is to group it with the other items of expense of administrating the Yukon, and so show the total of that service. This administration of the Yukon is a new service, one in which the people are deeply interested, and it was thought convenient to group the Yukon items under one head. When they appear in the public accounts, they will appear charged to the proper departments. There is no danger of anybody failing to notice the division of the vote, for the hon. gentleman's own remarks show that there is a note inserted to call attention to the matter. The object is to show the Yukon estimates together, and I think my hon. friend should see that there is much in that object.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: It is not easy to find those things. For instance, one has to go through three or four books and follow that note out. It gives no suggestion that the item under consideration purports to be complete. ' Salaries and allowances for the outside service of the post office.' These figures are given at $1,000,000 in round figures. Down below there happens to be under all these items ' See also page 70 for services in the Yukon territory.' Taking that book, no one would

47G
be able to say for a moment that any of these services on page 70 had to do with the post office, because it says on page 70 that for the government of the territory there Is an amount of $270,000 required. One has to take the Auditor General's Report and go into these items of expenditure. Is the hon. gentleman able to say when the other territories were given the advantage of a postal service, when postmasters were appointed in cities and towns ?


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask another question, which the hon. gentleman can answer at the same time. In regard to the item 223, which we are now considering, how much of that increase of $35,000 is due to the Post Office Department ?


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: My hon. friend is reading the wrong item. The hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) is under the same error, because he spoke of the item as being the government of the Yukon. That is not the item. The item distinctly says it is for post office service of the Yukon.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I think with the hon. member for Pictou (Sir Charles Hibbert Tupper) that there is, I would not like to use the word ' deception,' but it looks very much as if there were what we call mental reservation in regard to this vote ; because, as pointed out by my hon. friend from Pictou, we have under one item, salaries and allowances for the outside service, but no special reference. It is only when you come to the foot of the page that you see a note : ' See also page 70, services in Yukon territory.' At page 70 there is a whole string of services and nothing to indicate that it is the post office.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. gentleman will look at item 224, on page 70, he will see there an item for the post office. ,


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why, when this note was inserted at the foot of the page, connected with no previous item, were we not referred to the expenditure in connection with the post office, instead of to the services in the Yukon, on page 70 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Because he will find the same note applying not only to the post office, but to the railways, to public works and to the Department of Justice, in each of these cases, in order to show that there are appropriations other than those set forth where the note is put in.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We have now, at any rate, the certainty that the deficit on last year's operations was $461,661.87, plus this special service of $91,580.08, in all a deficit of $553,241.95. Now, I asked the Postmaster General early in the afternoon, what he ex-Sir CHARLES HIBBERT TUPPER.
pected the deficit would be this year. So far as I recollect, he stated that he anticipated that there would be no deficit, or a very small one. Now, we are nearly four months from the end of the fiscal year, and I think the post office must be managed in such a way as to give us an approximate idea, when we are voting these large sums, of what this year's deficit will be. I would ask the Postmaster General this general question, if he thinks the deficit this year, from present appearances, will exceed the sum of half a million dollars ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 
James Clancy: I waited for the hon. gentleman to answer the question that I asked him, in view of the statement that was made by the Minister of Finance, how he explains the overlappings, that we deny, by the figures appearing on pages S-11 and 12 of the Auditor General's Report. Turn to 8-12, and he will find: ' Clifford Lewis, semiweekly service to December 31st, 1899, 41 trips, at $28. $1,14S.' That is one item, and is a sample of many others which I will not read. That is a service that really belonged to a part of the year. I am only

pointing that out to settle the question as to whether there are overlappings or not.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, that belongs to the year in which it is paid. It belongs to the year 1899-1900.


James Clancy: It was paid in 1900.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It was paid in the year in which it was incurred.


James Clancy: Surely the hon. gentleman does not pretend to say that we are now quoting from the Auditor General's Report tor 1899. The Auditor General's Report is for the fiscal year 1900, and has absolutely nothing to do with accounts of former years. The hon. gentleman will not pretend that it is for a service charged in 1899, and which was not paid until the following year. .


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My instructions to the department, since I took office, have been to have every expenditure for the year paid and charged against the appropriation for that year, and I have made a special appeal to the Department of Finance to keep open the accounts for the year until everything can be included. My officers here assure me that my wishes in that respect have been lived up to, and they are not aware of any accounts for the fiscal year having been allowed to be unpaid until the succeeding year.


James Clancy: How does the hon. gentleman explain that item ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That item, on the face of it, is a stateiiient of service rendered to the 31st December, 1899. It is an account for the year from the 1st July, 1899, to the 1st July, 1900, and I do not see where else it could appear. It is for work done up to December 31, 1899, and the first half of the fiscal year covered by the Auditor General's Report. In what other place should it appear ?


James Clancy: It commences early in the season, before the 30th June of that year, and, therefore, half of the service had been performed at the end of the fiscal year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is quite unfamiliar with the accounts.


James Clancy: I am not unfamiliar with the accounts.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The service in the Rainy River district is performed during the summer by water and during the winter by stage. This contractor was performing the service by water or stage. I feel sure upon that point. The water service is performed in the summer by steamers. We have a mail service by stage from Wabigoon, and another service from Rat Portage, 160 miles, following the route of the Rainy river to Fort Francis in
that district. These were very expensive services. This may not be the water service, but the service after the close of navigation. 1 may be in error. I cannot recollect the name of the contractor, but the water service was performed by the company owning the steamboat plying between Rat Portage and Fort Francis.


Mr. BELL (Pietou).: May I ask the hon. Postmaster General to explain how he provided for the deficit of $781,000 that existed in 1896 ? In 1897, the following year, he claimed that he had a comparatively small deficit. How did he provide for that $781,000 of a deficit which existed and which disappeared apparently in some way in the course of the following year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My recollection is that the hon. Finance Minister applied to parliament for a vote of $680,000. and that parliament voted the money and wiped the deficit out.


John William Bell: How can the hon. Postmaster General, in the face of that, maintain that he should fairly compare that deficit of $781,000 with the deficit which he had apparently in the next year when he admits that to provide for the deficit he got a sum of money given to him by the hon. Finance Minister, by special grant, and which was charged to capital account ? How can he ask an intelligent House and country to accept his statement ? The Postmaster General here informs us that during the year ending June 30, 1896, there was a deficit of $780,000, and that he had only a deficit of $60,000 the next year. He has, I think, conclusively established the contention made by the hon. the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Haggart), that there was no such deficit for 1896. He has proven that hon. gentleman's contention by the facts and figures given in his own report. There was nothing in the receipts or expenditure of the department in the year 1897, that would ccount for the disappearance of that alleged deficit, and I think we may accept as a matter now satisfactorily established that the deficit did not at all belong to the year terminating on June 30, 1896, but was the increment of a series of arrearages extending over a number of years. Therefore, I think we must charge the hon. Postmaster General with a lack of ingenuousness when he seeks to put the deficit for 1896 at $780,000. as compared with the deficit that existed in the following year. There are one or two matters to which I want to call the attention of the hon. the Postmaster General. 1 suppose he is exceedingly anxious to make his department self-sustaining as soon as possible. I know he is claiming a great deal of credit for cutting down the expenditure by refusing to let contracts to mail carriers without tender, and that he has saved a great deal of money, by, in some cases, breaking up contracts and reletting

470
them during the term in which they were to run. I would like to call his attention to the tact that some person is taking liberties with his'' department in the county of Pictou, in Nova Scotia, that he is taking contracts froni men who have efficiently discharged their work, and giving them to others who have not tendered for them. It may be a coincidence, but it is a fact nevertheless, that a man who has been deprived of the privilege of tendering and who has lost two contracts, the requirements of which he has performed in a manner so efficient as to secure the commendation and support of the people of that locality, is a Conservative, and a very active one, and that the gentleman to whom the contract has been given without tender is one, whatever his other qualifications may be, who is a strong supporter of the hon. gentleman and his friends. I am sure the hon. Postmaster General will put that matter right now that I have, in my place, in parliament, brought it to his notice and showed him how seriously some of his officials are departing from that magnificent line of conduct that he marked out for himself when he took office. Mr. Gammon, of Kiver John, was deprived of his contract, and another gentleman, Mr. Ritchie, of River John, received the contract although he did not apparently ask for it. Certainly he did not tender for it. There is another matter. I find, that, like my hon. friend from King's county, N.B. (Mr. Fowler), certain postmasters in Pictou county are marked for destruction or promotion. In many cases, despite largely-signed petitions from those in the neighbourhood, they have been dismissed and the post offices removed to other places for no reason whatever except a political reason. That is a shame. It is a pity that men can be found in our country so small as to covet an office of $10 or $20 a year, and that an administration can be found so contemptible as to listen to the demands of defeated candidates who wish to wreak their vengeance on men who refused to support them, and who stood in a manly fashion by their party. It is a sad thing to know that Canada is governed by a set of men who will lend themselves to such contemptible conduct. Even in cases where Liberal friends asked the post office to be left where it was, at the instance of defeated candidates the whole public service of Canada is being dragged down by the acts of this administration. It is a miserable, petty, jjicayune piece of business. The government is raising up for itself a fine monument in showing that it is the tool of creatures who are capable of asking the dismissal of men holding these small offices, simply on the ground that they refused to vote Liberal.


Charles Hibbert Tupper: I beg to associate myself with the observa-Mr. BELL (Pictou).
tions which have been so well made by my hon. colleague from Pictou (Mr. Bell)" In fact, in view of the rules of the House, I would not like to trust myself to express my own opinion of what I think of these transactions, and of the petty vengeance of the government, which has been referred to. I do not believe that the Postmaster General is cognizant of the facts surrounding that small contract from the town of River John to the station which was obtained during his own term of office. If my information be correct, Mr. Gammon got that contract by tender-, and has done the work to the satisfaction of every one, including the officers of the department. This gentleman who has cut him out did not get the contract, 1 am informed, by open competition. I would like the Postmaster General to take a note of it, because it may not be too late to see that the pettiest party politics of that character should not be permitted to prevail. Mr. Gammon, I am glad to know, is not dependent on that, small contract, and it should be known that he was not cut out of the contract fairly in open competition. If it is not too late by a day or two, the Postmaster General would do no injury to the service or himself if he gets all the facts before him prior to his making this change.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot recall the circumstances of this particular-case


Charles Hibbert Tupper: We will ti-y to make emphatic representations of them to you.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The officei-s will take a note of this case, and see to it.


Mr. POPE.: I call the attention of the Postmaster General to the dismissal, ox-rumoured dismissal, of Miss Sanborn, postmistress of Bulwer, which, I understand, is on account of the alleged partisanship displayed by that young iady during the elections which took place in Compton. While we are all accustomed to the peculiar character of vengeance which the present government visits upon those unfortunate gentlemen who have votes and who voted intelligently and independently, I wish to present to the Postmaster General the case of a young lady who has no vote. This post office is in a small community, and the house answers for the Canadian Pacific Railway station as well as for the post office. I understand that the office has not as yet been removed, and I take this early opportunity of calling the attention of the Postmaster General to it. The post office, together with the keeping of the railway station, is the only means of livelihood which this young lady has, and I trust she will not be removed as postmistress. I wish to know if the Postmaster General will grant my request.


Tlie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I would ask my hon. friend (Mr. Pope) to discuss tlie question with me later.


Rufus Henry Pope: With tlie greatest of pleasure.


Mr. CLARE.: I wish to ask the Postmas ter General why it is that the post office at Freeport, between Berlin and Preston, in the county of Waterloo, has been closed up recently ? That post office has been in existence for some forty years, and the excuse given by the Postmaster General in other cases does not apply here, because the revenue from that office is quite large and the expense small. It is situated in a very populous part of our county, and although the salary attached to it is small, it is considered so important that a number of the farmers around there pay a portion of the expenses of keeping it up. I do not know whether or not the post office has been removed into another riding, because South Waterloo sent a representative to oppose the government, but I do say that it is unjust that this post office should be closed. If the Postmaster General were to investigate; he would find that it is in the interest of the public that this post office should be returned to its previous location.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In answer to my hon. friend (Mr. Clare), I will say that his observations shall not pass unnoticed. I will ascertain why the post office is closed, and will be happy to discuss the question at a later period, if the hon. gentleman desires. I will express the hope that while the constituency of the hon. gentleman may not have sent him as a supporter of the government, it did not send him here absolutely to oppose the government.


Mr. CLARKE.: I was not in the House this afternoon when the Committee began the discussion of this item, and I do not know whether the Postmaster General (Hon. Mr. Mulock) made any statement as to his intentions with regard to the petition which reached him some time ago from the letter-carriers all over the Dominion. Has the Postmaster General made any provision in the estimates-which I see have been increased-to grant the prayer of that petition, and is it his intention to do so ? I would also ask if the Postmaster General has made any provision to give to the letter carriers of Canada the statutory increase of salaries to which they are entitled ? These are matters of great importance to a number of my constituents, and I would like an explicit statement from the minister (Hon. Mr. Mulock) about them. I would ask, too, if the Postmaster General would vouchsafe us information as to whether he has given any consideration to the question of reducing the drop letter postage ? In large centres of commerce, like the city of Toronto, it costs commercial firms less to distribute 10
their drop letters by messengers than to send them through the post office, and in addition to the reduced cost they get them more expeditiously delivered. I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General for more information on these matters. I do not desire to take up the time of the Committee by speaking at length on them. I would rather give the time to the hon. minister to make the necessary explanation.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: With reference to the pay of the letter carriers, I would say that the pay of the officials of the Post Office Department, inside and outside, letter carriers included, is regulated by the Civil Service Act which the previous administration, supported by hon. gentlemen opposite, placed upon the statute-book, and at present we are voting moneys in accordance with that Act. It will he premature, therefore, to provide for salaries not provided for by any existing statute. I am at this moment, however, considering the subject, and have been considering it. I have not yet had an opportunity of discussing it with my colleagues, but I will do so at the earliest moment. I cannot say more than that to-night. My hon. friend will excuse me if I cannot be more explicit, as I have not the power to be. With reference to reducing the rate on drop letters in cities from two cents to one cent, that is a subject which has received a good deal of attention in cities, where there is already free delivery, and where public opinion is altogether in favour of the reduction. But I very much doubt if the same view obtains outside of the cities. The cost of maintaining a free city delivery is very considerable, and until the rest of the country gets free delivery, I fail to see how you could justify giving a special preference to the inhabitants of cities. There are others to be considered who pay largely towards the expenses of the service. If a city is desirous of having a reduction from two cents to one cent, let it pay for the reduction by commuting the amount of the difference at a fixed sum per annum, and obtain the one-cent drop letter rate in that way. But up to the present moment I have not seen my way to discriminate in favour of cities.


William Findlay Maclean: Will the minister tell us what he intends to do for the farmer in the way of a rural mail delivery ? I believe that subject is under consideration, and that an experiment is to be made. Would he mind telling us where he purposes making the experiment ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is a very large question. A rural mail delivery has been tried for a short time in the United States, and one of my officers has been there taking observations, and is now preparing a report upon it. Mr. Ross, the assistant postmaster at Toronto, has been specially charged with that duty. I do not



know what conclusion he lias arrived at, as lie lias not yet made his report. I would not be right, probably in criticising the United States administration, but I think it will turn out that they are undertaking a much larger project than they contemplated when they began it. As to what it will cost, no one can very well anticipate. I had some conversation with some of the officers charged with the matter, and if I rightly understood them, they view with some alarm the task they have undertaken. It would mean a rural delivery over an area equal to that of Europe, with a population only one-fifth of that of Europe ; and Canada has an area equal to that of the United States. It is a very large problem, and could only be entered upon after the most careful consideration.


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: I have listened to the discussion to-night with considerable interest. The Postmaster General has laid down the rule that a post office may be cut off on the ground of its small revenue. We have also heard a great deal about the benefit of the two-cent postage rate. Those of us who live in the rural districts are not so much concerned in that reduction as we are to have the post offices at convenient points, where we can get daily mails. An office in a country place may be a very good distributing office, but a very poor receiving office; and if we should be deprived of our post offices on the ground of their small revenues, while we have now to travel considerable distances to get our mails, we would be compelled to go a great deal further. Then, with regard to the payment of postmasters, I think, the postmasters of towns and cities are paid a great deal better than the country postmasters, who have probably to keep their offices open much longer. In the rural districts we want the daily papers-though it would be a good thing for the government if the daily papers did not come-because they inform us of what is going on. A rural postmaster may sometimes be obliged to have his office open as early as six o'clock in the morning, when the stage goes by, and also late at night. I want to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to these points, so that he will consider that while a rural post office may not produce much revenue, it may be a very useful distributing office, and the postmaster may have to keep it open even longer hours than the city offices.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The remuneration of postmasters is a constant subject of discussion in this House. It has been so, I am told, long before any of the present members enjoyed seats here, and it will doubtless continue to be so for years to come. No one will pretend that the allowances made to postmasters of the class to whom my hon. friend refers represents in any respect a remunerative salary.


William Mulock: The communities are pressing for an increased number of post offices, and a neighbour is willing to take the office and serve a dozen of neighbours. He has the mail brought to him instead of having to go for it to the post office, and a nominal fee is allowed him. That has been the practice since confederation. If my hon. friend will think for a moment, he will find that if we were to give $50 increase to every postmaster in Canada, there are 10,000 postmasters, and that would involve an increased expenditure of $500,000.


Robert Johnston: I think it would be possible to take something off the men in the cities and towns who are getting large salaries and add that to the men in the rural districts who do not get enough. We have in our settlement men getting $10, $15 and $20 for keeping post offices, and they have to keep these offices heated and open longer hours than in the cities or towns, and besides they are responsible and have to furnish security. I say we should put them on a basis somewhat equal to the others, and give them something worth while, even if you have to take it off those who have large salaries.


Mr. ROBINSON (West Elgin).: I hope the hon. the Postmaster General will give careful consideration to some communications he has had from me on the subject of free rural mail delivery. I do not expect that such a system could be started all over this Dominion in one year, but the hon. gentleman could begin in the county of Elgin, and then follow it up in the county of York. He would then find that this service would be so much appreciated that the country would never allow these hon. gentlemen to remain in their seats on that side of the House unless they continued it. There is nothing you can do more calculated to keep the boys and the old men on the farm and make them love the farm as to give them a rural free mail delivery. They would then get their newspapers every evening, and be able to discuss all those questions which come up before this House and know nearly as much as some of the gentlemen- not the gentlemen opposite, of course-in this House.
I cannot refrain from putting in a plea for those postmasters and postmistresses who have to keep these rural post offices open almost day and night, because in the country, when our work is done and we have had our supper, it is often late in the night before we can go for our letters, and these postmasters and postmistresses have to keep their offices open to wait upon us. I think their case is deserving of every consideration, and I hope that when Christmas time comes, the hon. gentleman will have something on the Christmas tree to repay them for the work they are doing.
Let me add just another word. I often come down to the city, and of course, like

people from the country visiting the city, am quite an observer, and I see strong, double-fisted fellows-as big as the Postmaster General himself, walking to the post office two or three times a day just to see if there is anything there. It would be economy to have the mails brought to their addresses at least once a day and utilize these big strong fellows in some other kind of work. I think that every city of 10,000 inhabitants or even less, should have a free mail delivery. It would expedite business and in every way be an advantage to the community.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: I would draw the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to the fact that a petition has been presented from a part of my constituency asking for a post office to be erected in the township of Edwardsburg. The people have been agitating to have a post office there for some years, but although it is a very thickly settled district, they have not been able to get it as yet. Consequently they are obliged to travel quite a distance for their mail, and I understand that an arrangement has been submitted to the Postmaster General by which the route could be changed without any extra expense and give them this post office asked for. A number of people have expressed their willingness to take charge of the post office, and I hope the hon. gentleman will try and accommodate that section. He could do so without any extra expense. It would be a great convenience to the people to be able to get their daily paper and keep in touch with the times.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The subject was brought up this afternoon as to whether the Postmaster General had considered the question of changing the postage on newspapers, and I am not aware that he made any observations on the matter. I have heard from several rural publishers, who express the opinion that they would much rather have a straight postage on paper without regard to distance, than the present arrangement. The present arrangement occasioned a great deal of trouble and annoyance in separating the papers that must be carried a long distance, from those within the free zone, and the delay often results in their not being able to be mailed at the earliest possible moment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The publishers who enjoy the free zone can very easily get over the difficulty complained of by not taking advantage of the privilege. Some have done so. They find the exemption is so trifling that they voluntarily pay the postage. Last year I introduced a Biil dealing with the subject, which passed this House, but did not meet with favourable assent in the Senate.


Mr. THOMPSON.: I have heard numerous attacks made upon the Postmaster General this evening-some, I am afraid, with 16i
a tinge of bitterness-and it, therefore, affords me a great deal of pleasure to call the attention of this committee to a little incident which proves conclusively, to my mind at least, that the Post Office Department is not administered in that partisan spirit of which we have heard so much. Shortly after the general election in 1896, a small post office in my constituency of Haldi-mand was about to be deprived of a daily service, a tri-weekly service to be established. Being somewhat interested in the matter, I wrote as strong a letter as I could to the Postmaster General, asking him to continue the daily service, and, in my letter, I pointed out that in the polling subdivision where the post office was situated, only three Conservative votes had been polled in the general election. This, I told the Postmaster General, was not said to influence his judgment according to lines of political bias, but merely to show him the high grade of intelligence of the people in that neighbourhood, in the hope that such an intelligent people might not be deprived of the daily service and the daily newspaper. The reply came back from the Postmaster General, in terms courteous, but firm : I do not consider it in the public interest to continue this as a daily service ; I must insist on a reduction to a tri-weekly service.


James Clancy: I wish to dispel any doubt that may be in the hon. gentleman's mind with regard to the statement appearing in the Auditor General's Report. If he will turn to that report, page S-13, at the bottom of the page he will see this item :
Dominion Atlantic Railway and Steamship Company, six months, Dec. 31,
1898	 $379 27
It seems perfectly obvious, from inquiry into the matter since this discussion began, that there has been, and is now, overlapping which caused what hon. gentlemen are now claiming as the deficit of the past. The same state of things that obtained when the Conservatives were in power, still obtains. I am not laying down the irrevocable rule that the Minister of Finance laid down, that all these amounts will be paid at the end of the fiscal year. I am simply pointing out that they are not, and possibly cannot be. This is not an exceptional case, but is one of many.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 explained some time ago, that, in spite of every effort to include all accounts for the year in the public accounts of the year, that there were at times unsettled accounts that could not be adjusted before the Finance Minister closed the books. That will ever occur. This is an amount of something over three hundred dollars


James Clancy: It is only one.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My recollection is that in this case questions arose

between the department and this company. It would appear that some old system had existed, under which the company were paid a proportion of the postal revenue for carrying the mail. This led to a controversy, and probably made it impossible to close the account within the fiscal year. Isolated cases of this kind must always occur, but, substantially, all the expenditures for carrying on the service of the department for the fiscal year are disposed of in time to be included in the accounts of the year. I have given most explicit instructions to the accountant of the department, and have not the slightest doubt that those instructions are lived up to as far as possible.


James Clancy: Does the hon. minister know that where there are contracts for the season of navigation, the service must be performed partly in one fiscal year and partly in another ? I think I can point to several cases, showing that the case I have given is not an isolated one at all. Of course, these are somewhat exceptional, but it is out of these exceptional cases under the late administration that the hon. minister has tried to make capital. He seeks to lay down one rule for those who preceded him and another for himself. Whether there has been greater laxity in one case or the other, may be open to question, but the same state of affairs that formerly prevailed still prevail.


Mr. SMITH (Wentworth).: I desire to ask the Postmaster General if he has taken into serious consideration the application that I understand has been made to him by the H. G. & B. trolley line to carry the mails twice a day to and from Hamilton ? At present they are carried by the Grand Trunk, and the people living along the line get their mall from the adjoining offices on the following day. But, if it were carried on the trolley line they would get it the same day.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That application, I think, has been forwarded to the officers in Toronto for their report.


Mr. RICHARDSON (Lisgar).: I would like to refer to the question of the salaries of rural postmasters. I think the Postmaster General might well discriminate between the class he refers to as farmers, who take the post office merely as an accommodation to their neighbours and distribute the mail matter among them, and the class of postmasters who keep the post offices in villages and small towns. As a matter of fact, these men in many cases, have no revenue except from the post office. Their remuneration, as the Postmaster Gen eral will admit-I remember he admitted it a year ago-is very small, ranging sometimes from $200 to $500 a year. Many of these provide a building for the accommodation of a post office and keep the place heated, yet receive no remuneration for


William Mulock: doing so. There was a very general complaint a year or two ago that, owing to the reduction of the postal rate from three cents to two cents, the revenue of postmasters was reduced. I brought the subject up in parliament last session, and, if my memory serves me correctly, the Postmaster General observed that lie thought the revenue would still be practically the same. I am still Informed by postmasters that they suffer on account of the reduction in their revenues. I would re-echo the sentiment expressed by one or two other members here to-night that the Postmaster General might well consider the desirability of reducing the salaries allowed to postmasters in large cities, like Toronto, Montreal and Winnipeg, where postmasters receive from $3,000 to $5,000, and possibly more, and allow the rural postmasters some extra allowance or increased rate. I feel strongly on this matter, because I have been memorialized in this matter in many cases, and asked to press it on the attention of the Postmaster General.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: The Postmaster General lias expressed himself as willing to do justice wherever a case presented to him has been made out. There is in my riding a case which was supposed to have been brought up by the member representing the constituency in the last parliament, the case of Abrams Village and Cape Egmont. In that locality there are 400 or 500 voters, and of course a much larger population, and they only have a mail twice a week. These people have been asking for better mail accommodation for some time; I do not know whether the matter has been brought to the attention of the Postmaster General. There are also in this locality a number of factories along the shore, and the population is considerably augmented during the summer months. There are also a number of cheese factories, and in Abrams Village a number of stores. These people have a grievance in being deprived of a daily mail. It is only about five miles to a railway station, and there is every reason why there-should not be a daily mail to that locality. The country served by these post offices is fifteen or twenty miles in extent, and I notice the revenue is nearly treble the salaries received by the postmasters. I would like to have some assurance from the Postmaster General that this matter will receive his attention.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I can tell the hon. gentleman that the matter will receive careful consideration. If application has been made to the department, I am sure it is now receiving attention. Since I have been in the department there is no instance that I am aware of where such application asking for increased service has not been dealt with on its merits, looked into and disposed of favourably or otherwise. That is the invariable practice, and

takes place automatically. With reference to the observations of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richarson) suggesting that tbe salaries of the city postmasters should be reduced so as to increase the salaries of country postmasters, I fear 1 should not have the support in such a step of the hon. members for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke and Mr. Osier) and Centre Toronto (Mr. Brock), as well as members from other cities.


Mr. ROCHE (Marquette).: 
John Graham Haggart: This item may afford me an occasion for asking a question of the Postmaster General on a subject that I have seen noticed in the papers, I refer to a statement that he is making negotiations for the purchase of the Great North-western Telegraph Company. Is there any intention on the part of the government of acquiring possession of the telegraph lines throughout the country and attaching them to the post office system ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not aware of any negotiations being on foot for the purpose of acquiring the telegraph lines.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: The Postmaster General, in answer to some observations made a moment ago by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson) suggesting that the salaries of city postmasters be reduced, thought that the proposition would be opposed by the city members. I have no objection to voting the salary to the postmaster in the city of~ Montreal, some $4,000, because I do not consider it excessive. I would like to ask, however, in this connection, the hon. Postmaster General if he has considered particularly the state of the letter carriers in that city. Every one knows that living in the city of Montreal is probably the most expensive living for men of that

class to be found in any part of the Dominion. I have made representations on several occasions to the hon. Postmaster General, and I would like to know if he intends to maintain the salary of the postmaster in that city while giving no increase whatever to the letter carriers. I don't see any hon. member representing the city of Montreal here who would corroborate what I have just said in regard to the wants of that class of people, except the hon. member for St. Lawrence division (Mr. Bickerdike), and I have no doubt he will bear me out in what I say that there is urgent need in the case of these employees. I am very sorry that I cannot have corroboration from other members from that city.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have no doubt that if other hon. members were in the Committee at the present time they would be able to express their views. 1 would say that none of them has ever asked me to reduce the salary of the postmasters or the letter carriers of that city. The maximum salaries of all these officials are where they were for many a year. 1 would, however, remind my hon. friend of the position of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Richardson), in reference to the reduction of the salaries of city postmen. The hon. member for Lisgar suggested that the reduction of salaries of city postmasters might lead to giving better salaries to other classes in the service, and I said that probably if he were to seek tne views of certain hon. gentlemen in the House, for example the hon. members for West Toronto and Centre Toronto, he would probably find that they would not be in harmony with him in that view, therefore, I could not get unanimous support from that side of the House if I were to propose such a reduction of the salaries of postmasters.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General why I should seek the views of other members here or consult with them with reference to any policy. What business have I to seek the views of any hon. gentleman in this House ? I act within my rights as a member of this House, when I get up and state what my views are in regard to this subject. I do not know what he means or what he wants. I want to ask the hon. gentleman right here what he means ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When my hon. friend suggested that we should reduce the salary of the postmasters of Toronto and Winnipeg, I simply sought to point out to him that he would encounter the hostility of the members representing Toronto.


Robert Lorne Richardson: It has nothing to do with me what other hon. members may do or say.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier (Mr. Mr. MONK.
| Monk) refers to the point of increasing the salaries of letter carriers. Probably my hon. friend was absent from the Committee when I answered the hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) on that point.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: No, I was not ; I was speaking for the people of Montreal.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then I can only give my hon. friend the same answer that I gave to the hon. member for West Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: So far as I know there has been no application made to the department, nor has there been any demand made on the part of anybody to reduce the salaries of the chief officials in the post office at Toronto. I think these officials receive very small salaries, considering the importance of the positions they hold and the importance of the work they perform. If any hon. gentleman will take the result of the transactions of the post office in Toronto he will find that it is enormous in its magnitude. What we are appealing to the hon. Postmaster General for to-night is not to reduce the salaries of the postmasters, but rather to increase the salaries of the worst paid and the hardest worked officials in the service, the letter carriers. I have not taken up more than a few minutes' time of the Committee, and I must confess that the hon. Postmaster General has not given me a very satisfactory answer to the questions I propounded to him. The answer he made was that the question of making an increase in the salary of the letter carriers was receiving his consideration. I hope that consideration will be favourable, because, from the terms of the petition which has been sent in by the letter carriers, he must see that their plight is a very serious one. They point to the fact, that, notwithstanding the determination of the hon. gentleman to make this a cheap country to live in, their experience has been, since these hon. gentlemen came into power, that the cost of living has increased substantially and that the difficulty of eking out an existence on the salaries they receive in cities and large centres of population has been very much accentuated. The hon. Postmaster General is aware that in violation of the precedent set by his predecessors in the past, in violation of what was originally laid down in the administration of the department, these letter carriers who went in at a minimum salary of $30 a month, or $360 a year, have been deprived of the statutory increase of $30 a year. Some were deprived of it for three years in succession, and these men, by the act of the hon. Postmaster General, were unwillingly compelled to contribute in that time a sum equivalent to $180, to assist the hon. Postmaster General in making both sides of the post office ledger balance. I appeal to the hon. Postmaster General to take the situation that these men find themselves in

to-day into his most serious consideration, and I ask the hon. gentleman if, in the item under discussion, he has made provision sufficient to give each letter carrier who is not receiving the maximum provided for under the Act an increase of $30 a year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am very glad to have that information from the hon. gentleman.
I hope, in view of the urgency of the petition that has been sent in to him, and in view of the very strong case which these men have been able to make out, the hon. Postmaster General will make provision in the supplementary estimates to give them the whole or the major part of the increase they have asked for.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General if he proposes to increase the pay of the Montreal letter carriers as well.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


William James Roche: Before the item passes, I would like the hon. Postmaster General to give a reply to my question.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was going to. I remember answering my hon. friend's question the other day, and I stated that the action of the department was based . upon sufficient ground. If such grounds had not existed the action taken would not have been taken. I do not know that I can say anything more than that.


William James Roche: Has the hon. gentleman any objection to telling me what grounds there were for the action, or what evidence there was of partisanship 1


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Speaking from memory, I am merely giving an elaboration of that answer.


William James Roche: The only answer I received in the House was that this gentleman had been guilty of active political partisanship. Who were the parties who made the charges ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot say whether all the details are set forth in the department, but it is very well known that some years ago the department laid it down as a rule that postmasters and other officials might choose between their positions or taking an active part in politics, because it is incompatible with the public service that officials should become active political partisans. That has special force in connection with the postal service. Postmasters occupy a delicate position in the community, and if they keep aloof from party politics, all the better for the public service.


William James Roche: I am afraid that is not a very clear answer to my question. We are just about as far ahead as we
were before. Most assuredly When an hon. member gets up and states that to his own personal knowledge no such charge can be truthfully proven, some attention should be paid to his statement. If an hon. gentleman like the Minister of the Interior states that to his own knowledge this gentleman has been guilty of partisanship, then the hon. Postmaster General will be right, but 1 state that I have received petitions and letters, more particularly from Liberals than Conservatives, who have pooh-poohea the idea of that man being a political partisan. In no way whatever has the gentleman done one single thing in the nature of political partisanship except to go and cast a silent vote. Surely the Postmaster General will not drive him out of Ins office for that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot from memory say upon whose testimony the change took place, but I will look into the file of papers and ascertain. I do not know any reason why, if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Roche) presses for it, the name should not be given, but upon that point I would like to reserve a final answer until I look into the case. I will do so, and the hon. gentleman can bring it up upon another occasion if he desires.


Mr. CARGILL.: I would like to know just upon what principle the government proceeds upon this question of dismissing officials for offensive partisanship. I presume that the rule would apply to one offensive partisan as well as to another. I bring to the attention of the Postmaster General a case in my constituency in which a prominent postmaster, a brother-in-law of my opponent, took a very prominent part in the last election. If I can establish that this prominent postmaster acted as a political partisan, I would like to know from the hon. Postmaster General, if he will dispense with the services of that gentleman.
I have felt for some time that I have had a grievance against this man, and as this particular subject is now being discussed very thoroughly, I would like to know, in view of the principle laid down by the government in the early part of their regime in 1898, if the principle is applicable to partisan Reformers as well as to partisan Conservatives.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, in public life it is not considered necessary to decide more than the particular case calls for, and it is very unwise for public men to lay down propositions that appear to have no practical applicability.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh ! Hear, hear.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Cargill) will state a case, and if we think that a crime has been committed we will doubtless make the punishment fit the crime. But the hon. gentleman would not ask to have a case Tidjudi-

cated hypothetically in advance. Let him make the case and it will be dealt with. I do not know that my hon. friend in fairness could ask for anything more than that.


Henry Cargill: Would you appoint a commission to ha ye the matter investigated ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps the accused might confess and save all that trouble. The procedure would depend altogether upon the charge and the issue which grows up around that charge. Let my hon. friend (Mr. Cargill) present his case and justice will be done in the premises


Henry Cargill: Do you wish me to give you the name, and upon receiving the name do you promise to make thorough investigation and diligent inquiry and ascertain the tacts and adjudicate upon them yourself ; or in wliat way do you propose to proceed ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are many ways in which to do complete justice. If my hon. friend (Mr. Cargill) presents his case it will be dealt with in that spirit.


Henry Cargill: I thought I had presented my case. I am complaining that in the election which took place on the 7th November last a very prominent man occupying the position of postmaster in the east riding of Bruce, a very wealthy merchant there, a close relative of my opponent was very anxious to secure the election of his brother-in-law, and upon that occasion he resorted to devious ways and means that I think were very questionable. If I could in any way persuade the Postmaster General to give me his aid and influence in getting at the bottom of this matter I am quite satisfied that on hearing the evidence he would consider this postmaster an extreme political partisan, and, having ascertained that fact, the Postmaster General -consistent with the policy laid down by himself and his colleagues-would consider it his duty to dispense with the services of that postmaster.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The invariable practice has been for some person to send a communication to the department signed by himself and furnishing particulars of the acts which he charges against the postmaster. To merely say in a general way that the postmaster was anxious to have his brother-in-law elected, and that he resorted to methods to bring that about, is too vague for investigation. Let my hon. triend (Mr. Cargill) follow the general rule : send his statement that he knows these things of his own knowledge, or give his source of information and then we will take up his case and deal with it in some way.


Henry Cargill: I do not know why my verbal statement should be any more vague than what my written statement would be.


William Mulock: I assert here as a matter of fact that the postmaster to whom I refer had hundreds of dollars put up on the result in a particular polling division. He made it his business to get these bets. He went around that polling division night and day. The amount of money which he had bet on the result of the election in that polling division would when won have enabled him to have paid $5 to $10 for every vote in that polling division and then be money in pocket. The result was that in that particular polling division which had beeii in the habit of giving me a majority of from 80 to 120, it gave a majority of 10 against me. These are not vague statements. I ] could not make them any more explicit if j I wrote them, and I am prepared to prove them.


George Taylor: I want to bring a case to the attention of the Postmaster General, and I think that when he knows of it he | will certainly take action. I refer to the postmaster at Athens, whose name I think j is McNdughton. Mr. Thomas Biruey was i dismissed from that post office on the ground that he was an offensive partisan,
| but the only thing against him was that he had voted for myself and for the late Mr. Wood in Brockville. This Mr. Mc-Naughton came to Gananoque the day of nomination and was on the platform and was very offensive in his language. I had a meeting appointed to take place in Athens a few days after nomination and a letter was addressed to me at the post office at Athens. The postmaster, evidently thinking it contained some political matter, gave it to another person living in the same village by the name of Taylor, had it opened and handed back to him open, so that he could read the contents and did read them. He sealed it up and handed it back to me. At the meeting at night I made some reference to the dismissal of Mr. Birney, the previous postmaster. After the meeting McNaughton came to the hotel and abused me for referring to him on the platform. We had some words. The next day he met me on the street and challenged me to go into a yard to fight him.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: Did you accept ?


George Taylor: Yes, I did accept.


The MINISTER OF MARINE AND FISHERIES.: What was the result ?


George Taylor: He slunk away. If anything could be more offensive than the conduct of that postmaster, I ask hon. members to name it. I demand of the Postmaster General that he hold an inquiry into the conduct of Mr. McNaughton, and I would name as witnesses, Mr. Ross, the late postmaster, Thos. Birney, Samuel Bodie, and others I could name, who heard the offensive remarks made both in the hotel and on the public street, in the village of Athens.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman has made one serious charge against the postmaster-a charge that deserves investigation ; that is, that he delivered to another person, a letter addressed to .and intended for the hon. gentleman. That, of course, is an unpardonable offence, whether committed by this postmaster or by any other. I would say to the hon. gentleman, and to others, that it would be formally inadvisable to conduct investigations as the result of speeches made here, though, of course, they are entitled to weight; but as a matter of procedure, it would be much more convenient to have a written statement in the department, which would be a record in the department, of the matter complained of. I do not make that suggestion because I take exception to what my hon. friend has said, or because I belittle his statement in any way ; but rather that we should not depart from a methodical, businesslike way of dealing with such matters. If my hon. friend will make a statement of these matters in writing over his signature, and send it to the department, they will be investigated under oath. With regard to tampering with letters, or delivering letters to the wrong parties, whether accidentally or otherwise, if he says that a letter intended for him was delivered to some one else, that demands an investigation, and the onus will be upon the postmaster to explain his act. As to whether it is an offence for an officer to use improper language towards a candidate, that would depend upon circumstances.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps there was provocation ; perhaps it was not in the discharge of his (Pities in any way that this dispute arose ; my hon. friend may have provoked it on the street ; and so on. But, at the same time, if he desires that charge investigated, and will include it in his list, it will also receive investigation.
Mr. TAYLOR, In place of writing what I have said, I will clip it out of ' Hansard ' and sign my name to it, and send it to the hon. gentleman ; and I will make the further charge that he drove all through the riding with the candidate and canvassed votes.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Does the hon. Postmaster General contend that the most serious way of making a charge is not by a man on the floor of this House ? Is that not sufficient ? Must an hon. member who makes a charge on the floor of the House, afterwards go to the office of the Postmaster General, and make it in writing, over his signature ? I think the most clear and explicit way of making a charge is to make it here ; and when that is done, we have a right to expect it to be investigated, without any further proceeding.


Robert Lorne Richardson: Would the hon. Postmaster General mind saying
whether he regards going on a public platform and making a speech in favour of a party candidate, an evidence of political partisanship, sufficient to warrant the dismissal of a postmaster ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not wish to discuss hypothetical cases. If the hon. gentleman has a case of that nature, it will be investigated and dealt with according to the general rule. 1 am not going to lay down any rule as to what will be the conclusion in any alleged state of affairs. Political partisanship of an officer is contrary to our views.


James Clancy: Political partisanship, according to the hon. gentleman's views, is confined to his political opponents. The hon. gentleman knows that there could not be a greater farce entered into than to ask lion, members of this House to make charges and file them in his department. He knows perfectly well that charges of the most indifferent kind are constantly trumped up, and statements made which amount almost to perjury ; and the hon. gentleman, without sufficient investigation, satisfies himself with telling the incumbent of the office that his services are no longer required. That is followed up by a question in this House, and what is the invariable answer of the hon. gentleman ? Sometimes the charge of political partisanship has been made by a member or by a defeated candidate ; but when that answer is not given, the hon. gentleman states that he takes the responsibility himself. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman if it has not been the rule that when charges of political partisanship have been made against Conservative officeholders, ninety per cent of them have been dismissed without any inquiry. I challenge him to say whether that is not invariably the case. I believe the Minister of Marine and Fisheries is reputed to be somewhat more fair in that respect. I remember hearing the hon. gentleman state a case of what he called political partisanship ; I believe it commenced during the former parliament. It was a case of an official speaking on a public platform in a harsh and ungentlemanly manner of himself and his leader. I believe that is the kind of case that ought to be punished. It is precisely such a case as the one mentioned to-night by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) ; and yet, the hon. Postmaster General is so hazy over it, that he cannot tell what should be done. He says : * Perhaps you provoked him ; tell us all the circumstances.' I say that is not a fair way of dealing with both sides cf the House. If the hon. gentleman wants to show even the gloss of fairness, he will lay down the same rule for both sides. I believe political partisanship is a great evil : and if a person holding an office under the Crown, whether he be a Liberal or a. Conservative, should make himself offensive politically, he should receive such punish-

ment as may be meted out to him by those in authority. I do not think the Postmaster General has reflected credit upon himself by the way he has answered the question.


Mr.   MONIC@: I think the question of my hon. friend from Eisgar (Mr. Richardson) is worthy of an answer. The question has arisen more than once in the province cf Quebec, whether a postmaster who follows a candidate, who attends a political meeting, and there delivers a speech in favour of the candidate, is guilty of offensive partisanship. We ask the head of the department employing a number of postmasters, and he will not tell us. I think the right hon. Prime Minister might be appealed to to give us his opinion on that subject.


Robert Lorne Richardson: I may tell the Postmaster General that the case I had in view was not a hypothetical one. I had not made up my mind whether I would make any charge or not. I wanted to know what the position would likely be before I moved.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I thought it was somewhat refreshing to hear the statement of the hon. Postmaster General to-night, especially in view of the fact that in previous sessions he frequently told us that if any hon. gentleman in this House stated upon his word and honour that a party holding such an office had been a political partisan, he would deem it his duty to dismiss him.. That was the rule he applied to his opponents, it is a poor rule which will not work both ways, but he is not willing to apply that rule now with regard to his own friends.


Mr. McEWEN.: Judging hy the charges our friends opposite are making against the Postmaster General, he certainly must have meted out very different treatment where they live to what he has done in our district. In our district, when the mail contracts were renewed in 1896, after the present government came into power, one of the contracts was re-let to a Conservative. I believe he was the lowest tenderer and entitled to it, but none the less he was a Conservative and got it. That was not all. There was another mail contract to be let a little later on, which an old gentleman, a Reformer, had had for many years, and would you believe it that contract was let to a Conservative, and the poor old Reformer was left out in the cold. That is the way the Postmaster General has treated our people, and it does seem to me very curious that he should have acted so differently elsewhere.


Mr. HENDERSON.: It seems to me the debate lias drifted from the subject which gave rise to this discussion in the first place, that is the deficit. If we are going to settle that question, we had better drop minor matters, as the hour is getting late, and get back to the main sub-Mr. CLANCY.
ject, so that hon. members may understand for once and all whether there was a deficit at the end of 1896, or not. I would suggest to the hon. the Postmaster General that the time has now arrived when a change should be made in the system of keeping accounts in his department. I fail to see what there is to be gained by continuing from year to year two separate accounts, one for the Yukon district and another for the Dominion of Canada. I think that four or five years of keeping the two separate accounts is quite sufficient, and that from the beginning of next year all the accounts should be kept under the one head, and the question as to what is the exact deficit would no longer be disputed, but be very readily understood.
It may be said that that would not be fair for the purposes of comparison, but the hon. gentleman must remember that some of his colleagues have changed their methods of book-keeping, notably the Minister of Railways and Canals. We find now that many items are charged by that hon. gentleman to capital account which were not so charged by the previous government, and consequently his report is of very little use for the purpose of comparison. I might take also the Trade and Navigation Returns, in which the imports and exports are entered on a different basis, and it is difficult indeed to make comparisons unless we eliminate those items concerning which the system has been changed.
I think the hon. the Postmaster General would increase the value of his report very much, and make it much clearer if he would just make one account of the whole matter and not have two separate accounts. With reference to the deficit, which he claims existed at the end of 1896, I fail to see, after having looked into this matter very carefully, and after having listened carefully to everything said, why the Postmaster General should persist in claiming there was a deficit. What took place is simply this. At the end of 1895-6, on the 30th June, 1896, payment of a large number of contracts matured. The time for paying these contracts arrived on the night of the 30th June, 1896, but they could not possibly be paid at one o'clock in the morning of the 1st July, 1897. Consequently there was a large sum of money unpaid by the Post Office Department oil the morning of the 1st July. That practice had been carried on for years, and I believe dates as far back as the time when Sir Oliver Mowat was Postmaster General of Canada. These contracts were paid after the 1st July, out of the appropriation for the following year. They were not a deficit, but simply items which had matured and were unpaid, but were no evidence that the revenue of the Post Office Department ' was not equal to the expenditure. It seems to me that the Postmaster General has simply been playing with the House and

the country for the last three or four years, treating us as so many novices or children, and expecting us to believe that an account which only matured on the night of the 30th June, and was not settled at one o'clock in the morning of the 1st July, was a deficit. To my mind that is so plain that it would be foolish to waste my further time discussing it.


James Clancy: Will the hon. gentleman he increasing the service there this year t


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We expect to increase it.
Some resolutions reported.
On motion of the Prime Minister, House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Mail service	 $2,227,000


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the explanation of this increase of $20,000 compared with last year ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This is merely an approximate estimate. As the country grows, the service is constantly increasing, and doubtless this estimate will not he sufficient. We have had hon. gentlemen to-night pressing the government to increase the mail service. This is an increase of $20,000. Probably $10,000 will be set apart for land service, stages, &c., and $10,000 for railway service. There are railways approaching completion, and applications are coming in for mail service. With a growing service, an increased vote is necessary.
Post Office-Outside Service-Miscellaneous expenditure	 $235,000

Wednesday, February 27, 1901.