1903-07-06

Mr. R. F. SUTHERLAND (North Essex).: In the absence of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Morrison), I move :


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: That the order for the third reading of Bill (No. 175) respecting the Century Life Insurance Company be discharged and that the Bill be referred to the Committee of the Whole for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and. House went into committee on the Bill.
Robert Franklin Sutherland: I move that clause 3, paragraph 4, be amended by substituting the word ' ten ' for ' twenty-five,' in the second line.


Robert Laird Borden: How will that read ?


Mr. HENDERSON.: That is not an amendment to a Bill before the House, but an amendment to some other statute.


Robert Franklin Sutherland: This is a proposal to reduce the amount of cash paid in before the company begins from twenty-five per cent to ten per cent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: This amendment goes somewhat further than I understood from the hon. member who is in charge of the measure. I prefer that the Bill should be allowed to stand until the next day for Private Bills. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
House again in committee on Bill (No. 192) to enable the city of Winnipeg to utilize the Assiniboine river water-power.-Mr. Puttee.
Mr.. DEPUTY SPEAKER. The committee were considering section 4 :
The city, or its assignees, or appointees as aforesaid, may excavate, construct, operate, keep in repair and enlarge a canal (with locks, if necessary) to connect the Assiniboine river with Lake Manitoba.
-with Mr. LaRiviere's amendment thereto to strike out the words 'if necessary.'
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I am of the opinion that the canal should not be built without locks. But I want it to be provided that all works constructed under this Act must have the approval of the Governor General in Council. I am willing with a proviso to enlarge the amendment that I have suggested, and I will move that all the words in brackets, ' with locks, if necessary ' be struck out. After consultation with the promoter of the Bill, he has agreed to allow me to move that amendment; then it will remain with the Governor General in Council, as provided in clause 6, to decide whether the locks are necessary or not, and to approve of the plans for the construction of the canal. If this section 4 is left as it

is, there is nothing to provide who shall decide as to the necessity of those locks, but by striking out these four words in this clause, it remains entirely in the discretion of the Governor General in Council to decide whether there shall be locks or not. I, therefore, move that the words between brackets in the third line be struck out.
Mr. PUTTEE.: That amendment is agreeable to *ie as a matter of arrangement. I may say that the Minister of Public Works has suggested to put at the bottom of the clause ' subject to the approval of the plans by the Department of Public Works.' That would thoroughly safeguard the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
On section 5,
For the purposes aforesaid, the city or its assignees or appointees, as aforesaid may acquire lands by purchase, lease or expropriation, and for the latter purpose all the provisions of the Railway Act which relate to expropriation shall, so far as they are applicable, apply to the undertaking and works hereby authorized.
Mr. McCREARY.: It is a little unusual to give such wide powers as these to a private company, that is to say, the powers of expropriation that are contained in the Railway Act. Along the Red river, as most gentlemen understand, and along the Assin-Iboine also, the lands fronting on the river are in small narrow lines three or four chains wide, and extending back two or four miles. They are the lands of the original settlers who came there years ago. The part on the river is the most valuable. Their homes are there, their houses are there, and their cultivation is generally there. But unless this clause is properly worded it might happen that witnesses would go into court and swear that the land was only worth $10 or $15 an acre, whereas a small portion on the river, four or five acres, would be worth $100 an acre. The house may have only an actual value of $50, whereas the land upon which it is situated and in the immediate vicinity, may be worth $500. I think this section is a little too wide, and I don't believe they should have this power under the Dominion Railway Act. As I have already pointed out, this matter is one of gigantic importance, if the company were to construct this canal, as any gentleman will see who looks at the map from an engineering point of view and understands the quantity of water that is likely to flow down into the Assiniboine river through this canal. The clause should be restricted very much, and when we get to the other clauses, I shall raise certain objections to them. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to give us his views on this entire Bill, more especially on this particular clause.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS (Hon James Sutherland).: I would suggest
to the hon. gentleman in charge of this Bill that it would be well to amend this section. 1 do not think that the parties should go on and take action under this clause until their plans have been approved, and as there is no objection, I propose to insert, after the word ' aforesaid ' in the first line, the words ' after approval of the plans as provided in section 6 of this Act.'


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: I would draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to this clause. Most of the rights which the city would have to obtain would be those of easement for overflowing the lands, the right of erecting a dam and overflowing the lands. The principal damage would be the easement of the right of overflowing these lands. It seems to me they can do this without auy expropriation in the first instance. They would have the same right a railway would have. It is an extraordinary power to give to a person to erect a dam on a river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: In reply to the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. McCreary), I would say that the Bill had not been brought to my attention until after it had passed the committee. I would not like to refuse the city the legislation they are asking for, the object is a good one, and under certain restrictions it is desirable, perhaps, that the city of Winnipeg should have this power. But I think my hon. friend will agree with me that after the amendment we have put in for the approval of the plans, they can take action under this and under the Railway Act, and the city would be liable for all damages caused.


William Forsythe McCreary: Under section 110 they have the power.


John Graham Haggart: That is the power that is only given to a person to erect a dam on a navigable or other river. They can obtain the easement in the first place before they get the charter or the right to proceed. Tills gives them the power of erecting a dam and settling for the easements afterwards the same as the railway company may do. I think It is rather an extraordinary power to give to any person the right of overflowing a large section of country such as the hon. gentleman describes.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would suggest that we might proceed with the Bill. Some material amendments have been proposed, and when the measure has passed through the committee stage it might stand for a third reading so that we might have an opportunity of further studying some of the suggestions which have been made to-day.


Arthur W. Puttee: I think the amendment proposed by the hon. minister covers the case

in a fairly satisfactory manner. This is not a new matter. These powers hare been granted over and over again by this parliament. The question of damages has been thoroughly gone into. The dam is to be constructed within the corporate limits of the city of Winnipeg, and the area of the land which will possibly be damaged will not be more than 100 acres. All this has been provided for and there is no intention on the part of the city of Winnipeg to endeavour to exercise any extraordinary powers.


Mr.   CLARICE@: The city would be responsible for any damage done ?


Arthur W. Puttee: Yes, the city makes itself thoroughly responsible for all damages.


William Forsythe McCreary: I rather think the hon. member for Winnipeg (Mr. Puttee) has not given the matter sufficient consideration. I have the statement of the engineers of the department here to the effect that instead of 100 acres being flooded it will be more like 10,000 or 20,000 acres. We all know that the banks of the Assiniboine at Head-wich, further up than Winnipeg are lower than they are at Winnipeg, and that as a result the country would be flooded. The hon. member for Provenclier (Mr. LaRiviere) knows that the Manitoba government, away back in 1881, constructed this very canal from Long lake to Assiniboine river, and that while it cost $10,000 or $15,000 to construct it, it cost nearly $50,000 to stop it up again because the water flooded the adjacent country. When I first went to Manitoba, the parish of Bale St. Paul was a populous parish, but in 1882, practically the whole population left and went to the North-west Territories, because of the flooding of the country ; in fact, in the town of Baie St. Paul, in the fall of 18S2, when the Canadian Pacific Railway was diverted from the route intended to Portage La Prairie which it was originally (intended to follow, X came down and I saw some of the houses which had been upset in that parish so deep had the water been. It is of some importance to the public that their rights should be safeguarded. WThen the hon. member for Winnipeg makes the statement that the construction of this dam may result in the overflowing of 100 acres of land he certainly is entirely in error. I have applied to the engineers of the department who understand the situation fairly well and they say that it will be impossible to construct a dam there without overflowing a large extent of territory. Under all the circumstances, I think the hon. Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) is quite right in suggesting that the Bill should stand until he has time to look into it.


Arthur W. Puttee: It does not seem to be necessary to go into disasters that happened in other parts of the country in connection with this Bill. I have been in the city of Mr. PUTTEE.
Winnipeg during the last week looking into this question and examining the plans. I find that the plans are identical with those which were approved in 1889. The banks of the Assiniboine are as low immediately west of Winnipeg as anywhere. The overflow will extend for four miles west of Winnipeg to the point where the river strikes Sturgeon creek and not to Headingly. The river-bed at Headingly is 25 feet higher than it is at Winnipeg, and to say that* the land will be affected by the rise of the river level at that point is to say something which is not reasonable. As a matter of fact, It was stated in this House last week that these floods occurred last year right back as far as Portage La Prairie. Last year the water was higher than this dam when constructed will allow it to go. This dam will not stop the floodiug, but it will not increase it one bit. The water will only be raised as far back as Sturgeon creek four miles above the dam, and not up as far as Headingly where the banks are steep.


Mr. CLARKE.: Have there been any protests against this Bill ?


Arthur W. Puttee: The Board of Trade of Winnipeg did make a protest, but during the week they have been looking into the amendments that have been proposed and they have agreed that they are satisfactory.


William Forsythe McCreary: As a matter of fact, the people there do not know anything about the Bill that is before the House. I scarcely knew anything about it until a few days ago. They have had no means of knowing.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 7.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I would ask the promoter of this Bill to show cause why this clause should not be struck out altogether. I think it would be very objectionable.
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I gave notice of motion to the effect that section 7 be struck out and I believe the promoter of the Bill agrees with me on that. I believe there should be a provision that wherever any work is done by the city of Winnipeg outside its own limits and within the confines of the limits of another municipality the local municipality should have something to say in the matter. It is a fact that these works might cover ground in one, two, three or four municipalities. There is the municipality of Assiniboia which is adjacent to the city of Winnipeg. They should be consulted if any work affecting their interests is done within their limits. The municipalities of St. Franqois-Xavier and Portage La Prairie are in the same position and therefore when my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) speaks with regard to those localities, he

speaks with regard to municipalities which he represents in this House ; namely the municipalities of Assiniboia and St. Fran-cois-Xavier. Of course that has no reference to this clause at all. I move that section 7 he struck out.


Arthur W. Puttee: If that is the view taken well and good. However, if hon. gentlemen will look at the next clause they will see that this matter is thoroughly covered. The idea is that the putting up of this dam will practically make that river navigable and it has only been technically navigable for the last twenty years. Later, when necessary Work is done further along the river at Portage La Prairie perhaps by this government or the local government, the river for a considerable stretch will be navigable. At that time it would be right and proper that the lock should be put in. As the Minister of Public Works and the member for Provencher (Mr. LaRiviSre) think it is safer to have this clause striken out I agree but I point out that what they seek is already provided for in the Bill.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: For the last fifteen years in the city of Winnipeg the question has been discussed of utilizing the power on the Assiniboine, and it has been a subject of a very great deal of investigation and study. It is a question to which very great importance is attached by the leading citizens of Winnipeg. and the House ought do what it can prudently do to enable the work to be carried out. There is however a great deal in what my hon. friend from Selkirk says in regard to the natural difficulties in the way, and I do not think that the House ought take any chances at all in regard to the rights of the property owners who live on the river banks above the city of Winnipeg. Whatever may be the importance of the wofk to the city of Winnipeg, it must be carried out in such a way as not to do injury to the rights of other people. In view of what happens in the Assiniboine river season after season it is difficult to think that the construction of a canal without a lock would be a safe proceeding. I am satisfied that the result of constructing a dam without a lock would sooner or later be disastrous, and in that respect I think that my hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. McCreary) is perfectly right. The Bill therefore should not give countenance to that intention, and when the time comes for the officers of the Department of Public Works to deal with this question, they will have to deal with it in a thorough and far reaching way, and they will have to have a complete examination made of the river for 100 miles or perhaps 150 miles, and a very careful study of the whole project, before approving of any plan. In the meantime it would be a great mistake for parliament j to give any indication that the works should
be built without any dam, and without any provision being made, not only for the purpose of navigation but in respect to the work itself.


John Graham Haggart: There is an objection to transferring the power of eminent domain to the city of Winnipeg for the purpose of erecting a dam to create light and power. We transfer that power to companies for the purpose of constructing railways or canals, or telephone, or telegraph lines, but I have never known of it being transferred to a private company or to a city for the purpose of erecting a dam to generate light and power. I know the ground perfectly well, and it seems to me that this will be an enormous undertaking. A dam to be utilized for the purpose of power of any kind must flood the country for an immense distance up stream, and to allow any party to exercise that power without their plans being filed and the property acquired is a very serious matter.


Robert Laird Borden: It is merely a question of whether the purpose is of sufficient importance. I have known cases where power has been given for similar purposes. It is usual in some of the cities of the maritime provinces to give power to expropriate for the purpose of erecting water works, and the city of Halifax also received power to expropriate for the purpose of constructing a dry-dock. These are somewhat in the same line as the works proposed in this Bill except that in this case the city of Winnipeg is authorized to dispose of the surplus power for commercial purposes. As far as section 7 is concerned I do not think it makes the slightest difference, with regard to the power of the Governor in Council, whether it is in or out. If it is in, the Governor in Council may or may not order the lock, and if it is out, the Governor in Council may or may not order the lock. There is therefore no reason why it should not be struck out.


The MINISTER OP THE INTERIOR.: No doubt my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) is perfectly right as to the legal effect of section 7, but I am afraid that it might be an indication to the officers of the Department of Public Works that parliament had in mind the possibility of this being done without the construction of the lock. To that extent it seems to me the clause is objectionable and ought to come out. I do not think there is any serious objection to the city of Winnipeg, if it so desires, developing this i power and making use of it for any purpose it thinks fit. I remember that when the project was first mentioned the city authorities had the idea that they would lease the surplus power t'>
manufacturers, and that was the main purpose of the scheme at that time. And although I have not followed the discussions lately I feel satisfied that that idea is largely responsible for this Bill being

here. I can see no objection to their selling the surplus power in any manner they see fit.


John Graham Haggart: I have no objection to their utilizing the power for any purpose whatever, but what I take exception to is granting to the city the right of expropriation for any such power as this.


The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR.: I quite agree that every precaution should be taken to prevent the city from acting in an oppressive way or injuring in any way the private rights of anybody. Perhaps *when the sections have been further proceeded wtith, with the exception of this section 5, that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works may very well take that point into consideration.


William Forsythe McCreary: I think a clause should be introduced stating more exactly what damages should be paid in case land was flooded. For some time past the city of Winnipeg has been trying to make an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway in respect to a subway, and in the Bill it was stated specifically what damages the Canadian Pacific Railway would have to pay. The Canadian Pacific Railway refused to enter into that agreement. It was stated that they must pay for the damages on Point Douglas Avenue as well as for five or six streets north and south of Point Douglas Avenue; so much so that the damages might have amounted to $1,000,000. If the city of Winnipeg was so careful in protecting its rights in that Bill why should they not grant the same protection to private individuals now ? The only means of crossing the Assiniboine river is by means of ferries, there are no bridges at all until you get to Portage La Prairie. There are ferries at St. James, and St. Charles, Headingly and St. Francois Xaxier, and if the river is made navigable these municipalities would be put to extra expense in operating these ferries. The cable would have to be lowered every time a boat came along, which would entail quite a little expense on the municipality. Outside of that the damage which should be assessed in favour of the private individual should be more fully stated in the Bill. He should not be put off with the bare value of his land on the edge of the river.
Motion of (Mr. LaRiviere) agreed to.
On section 10,


William Forsythe McCreary: Here is the danger point in this Bill. While you have the city of Winnipeg to attack for damages, you are able to get justice, because it is a solvent corporation. But suppose that the city under this clause should assign the franchise and the works to a company which became insolvent, where would the private owner be ? The Bill does not make the city re-


Hon. Mr. SIFTON.: sponsible; it simply provides that the city may assign, and the party to whom it assigns shall be responsible. I think the owners of the land along the river should be better safe-guarded by this clause, if it is allowed to stand at all.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: So far as I am able to judge, the hon. member is quite correct. It is questionable whether the power which we are granting to the city of Winnipeg would be granted to a private company. I think it would be only right to strike out this clause; and if at any future time the city should desire to transfer its rights to a company, it should come and ask for legislation for that purpose. It would be very mueli safer. I move that this clause be struck out.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the hon. minister if the object he has in view could not be accomplished by amending this clause so as to require the city to obtain the consent of the Governor in Council before it assigns or transfers its rights ?


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: That was my first thought; but after hearing the discussion, I see that the interests involved are very large.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The city will have to assume all responsibility for whatever damage is sustained.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Edward Frederick Clarke: As I understand, the city wants to construct these works and hand them over to a private company. It wants to control them, but to allow somebody else to operate them.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: No, the city can assign the franchise.


Hon. Mr. TISDALE.: I do not see how it would help the matter to require the city to obtain the consent of the Governor in Council. The city might hand over the franchise to people of straw. It is questionable, in my mind, whether such powers should be granted to the corporation at aff; because, by being allowed to transfer, the city gets' out of the responsibility. As to Orders in Council, they are not to protect rights, but to see that provisions made by parliament are properly carried out. An Order in Council would be no protection to the private owner against the objection to giving the city these extraordinary powers. If we gave them to the city, it would be on the consideration that it is a municipality and that it is responsible for all its acts; but I would even hesitate before giving such extensive powers to a city. We are, in fact, substituting the city for the Crown, giving it to some extent the right to control the navigation of this river. I think with the Minister of Public Works that we go quite far enough in giving the city power to construct these works, and if subsequently

it wants to transfer them to anybody else, it would be no hardship to it to come back for special legislation for that purpose.


Mr. FRASER.: I have two objections. I do not see why we should permit the city to transfer the water works anyway, because the city is the proper party to own and control water works. Secondly, 1 think we would be going a little too far to allow the transfer on its being submitted to the Governor in Council. I doubt very much the wisdom of permitting the Governor in Council to say that any franchise should he transferred. Some of the clauses I would not agree to if proposed for a private company; and if I would not for a private company, neither should I for the city if the city could transfer, to a private company; for so long as there is the power of transferring, it is the same as if we gave the franchise to a private company direct. I think this clause should be struck out, and all the other clauses referring to assignment amended so that we would give a charter to the city without the possibility of its being assigned to anybody else.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be sorry if it were possible to conceive of the city of Winnipeg obtaining this Act in its own name for the purpose of constructing certain works merely as a blind, in order to grant that power to a private corporation. I understood, from glancing at the Bill, that the [DOT]object of the city was to construct these works and have them operated by a private company, and that is the reason it asks for the power to assign. If this is .merely an attempt of the city to obtain for private Individuals legislation which they could not obtain for themselves, I have no objection to having this clause struck out; but I cannot conceive it possible that the city of Winnipeg would come and ask for legislation to benefit a few private individuals in the name of the city. I assume that if the city did assign its powers and franchises it would require those to whom it assigned to put up the necessary security before undertaking the work, and that if the Governor in Council were satisfied with the parties and the security, there would be no objection to allowing this clause to pass.


David Tisdale: The danger to the property owners might arise after a great part of the work was done; and, after the city made the transfer, it would be relieved of responsibility.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They must give security.


David Tisdale: No, they may, for the purpose of construction, alteration and everything else, transfer their rights and powers to any company upon such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon between the city and such company. If we were dealing with a private corporation, we would hesitate a great deal before granting it any such rights, and we ought
to hesitate before granting the city this exceptional power and enabling it to get rid of all responsibility by transferring all its rights and obligations to a company. There might be question of very serious damages arising from the construction of the works authorized by this Bill for which the city would be responsible, and the question for us to consider is whether we shall allow the city to shift that responsibility upon somebody else.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: The point which suggests itself to me is this :	Has
this House the authority to vest in the city of Winnipeg the power to interfere with provincial rights ? I should imagine that the provincial government would have something to say with regard to the carrying on of the works authorized by this measure.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: I do not know what the opinion of the Department of Justice would be. but as these are navigable waters, we have no doubt the right to pass this legislation.


Samuel Hughes: The canal is not navigable because it is solid land.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It would be after it was built.


Samuel Hughes: Under the charter of the city of Winnipeg, I very much doubt if it has authority to build canals and navigate the Assiniboine river.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: It might be necessary for the city to get legislation from the provincial legislature as well, with regard to some of these works, but so far as we are going we are acting within our jurisdiction. I move in amendment that this clause be struck out.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: I ruled the other day that no amendment could be made to a Bill in Committee of the Whole, which was )of any importance, without giving a day's notice. To strike out a whole section is a very important amendment, and the rule to which I refer must apply.


The MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS.: Then I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to take notice that at the next sitting of the committee I will move that this clause be struck out.


Robert Laird Borden: Was our action irregular in striking out clause 7 ?
Mr. LaRIVIERE. I gave notice of that.


Arthur W. Puttee: I would ask the hon minister of Public Works to consider whether it would not serve the purpose just as well to put in a clause making this matter subject to the approval of the Governor in

Council. The city lias been asking for this power for years past, because tbis motive power is witbin the city limits, and tbe question of obtaining power is becoming a very serious one. We have no fuel except at a tremendous price, and tbe number of factories is growing. It seems to me that if we made tbis clause 10 subject to tbe approval of tbe Governor in Council, tliat would meet the difficulty witli regard to damages.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LOGAN moved that tbe House go into committee on bill (No. 135) to incorporate tbe Quebec. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Railway Company.
Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.: I would like tbe Bill to stand over, if the promoters will agree to tbis.


Mr. LOGAN.: Can tbe lion, gentleman give any reason for bis request ? It lias stood over already several times at tbe request of parties interested, and on one occasion at tbe request of tbe bon. gentleman himself. I do not think that it should stand over again after all these adjournments.


John Costigan: I prefer not to go into a discussion on tbe Bill at present. 1 think it is necessary to give notice of any amendment, and I intend to move one for which I will have to give a day's notice. I would ask, therefore, that tbe Bill be allowed to stand over, but if not I shall go on and discuss it. I may say that I do not think much progress will be made by insisting on going on with it to-day. One of tbe reasons why I have made tbis, to my mind reasonable, request, is that I think the Bill ought not to be here to-day at all. Tbe lion, gentleman (Mr. Logan) has. referring to my request to postpone the Bill, said that it had stood so long-I do not know whether he meant to convey the idea for my convenience or not-that I ought not to complain. It is true the Bill was a long time before the committee. And I watched it very closely, because the Bill is one calculated to interfere with existing rights, and it was my duty, associated with other gentlemen in connection with an existing charter, to protect those rights, and more especially so, in the absence of others, I was about the only one left to do it. This Bill is almost as broad in its scope as the Grand Trunk Pacific Bill, and it opens up a very large field. I have never taken up the time of the House discussing the Grand Trunk measure, or any other : but. as this opens such a wide scope. I may be permitted to take advantage of the opportunity afforded me to speak pretty generally upon the question, but, I trust, without infringing the rules of the House.


Arthur W. Puttee: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the length of the proposed line ?
Hon. Mi*. COSTIGAN. Speaking roughly, I should think a couple of thousand miles. Two or three years ago a charter was applied for and obtained to construct a road from some point opposite the city of Quebec down through the province of Quebec and into the province of New Brunswick, so as to connect with the railways existing at that time. That charter was obtained as the result of a consultation between several Quebec representatives and myself in the province of New Brunswick. We had felt a great desire to have wliat we contended for in the early days, the old Intercolonial line extended, and, though we failed to secure the construction of that road by the route which we thought the most economical and the best, we did obtain the construction of the line built from Fredericton up as far as Edmunston at a cost, not to this country but to our province, of tbe most valuable wild farming lands in the Dominion of Canada-bush lands. We reached Edmundston. We made further efforts to get the line built thirty-five miles farther, to a point near the mouth of the St. Francis. Twelve or fifteen years ago. during the time when Mr. Merrier was in power in Quebec, a charter was granted to construct the Quebec portion, not in connection witli ours, but as a colonization road. It was to develop the lands in six counties in the province of Quebec, on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. The province of Quebec granted a bonus of 12,000 acres of land per mile in afd of the road. Land at that time was not considered as valuable as it is at present; and, having no other subsidy, the company failed to build that colonization road in the province of Quebec. Having pushed that railway thirty-five miles up beyond Edmundston towards the western country, towards Quebec, I approached the late Mr. Deschenes, who was a member of this House, and who was working up the enterprise of having this road built through Quebec. 1 told him that if he would join us in New Brunswick and make it an interprovincial railway, our chances would be better, and I would do anything to work with him if he would agree to connect at Connors' station or at the present terminus of the Temiscouata branch of the line. This was arranged, and we obtained the charter. Everything went on satisfactorily. The Dominion government gave a subsidy to about half the road, that is 135 miles to the point of connection at Connors' station.


John Graham Haggart: Does this go by the St. Francis river ?


John Costigan: Yes. The province of New Brunswick granted its usual subsidy for the portion in that province to encourage the construction of this through line : and the Dominion parliament granted a subsidy for half the whole line. The Que-

bee legislature did not grant the aid that was expected by the Quebec friends. Last year a contract was entered into with the Dominion government to construct the first section on the lower end. Work was commenced and proceeded with. This session my attention was called to the fact that amongst other charters one was applied for to construct a railway from the city of Quebec up to the Quebec bridge, across the bridge and thence to Moncton, thence to some point in Nova Scotia, and so through the province of Nova Scotia to some harbour on the eastern coast of Nova Scotia.
I do not think I am over suspicious ; but, looking around. I wondered at the application being made for a charter which must necessarily blanket the charter of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company ; and, more than that, was evidently intended to blanket or cover the charter already granted to another company two years ago,
I believe, to build from the city of Quebec up to the Quebec bridge and control its approaches. Now, 1 wondered why this application should be made to construct the railway from the city of Quebec up to that bridge, which must cover this existing charter. I was more surprised at that than at the attempt to cover the charter claimed by the Quebec and New Brunswick charter. One of the reasons that I asked that the Bill should go back is this-and this is the effect of the amendment of which I gave notice, but which I cannot discuss now- that the line should be defined to some extent. at least the proposed location of the road through the province of Quebec. Now. some of the hon. gentlemen who are behind this Bill say that they do not intend to touch or interfere with the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway. That is all very well. But the charter does not say that-the charter leaves them full power to construct over every mile in Quebec and New Brunswick of the Quebec and New Brunswick charter. I do not think that that is right. I did propose to some of these gentlemen, when they told me they did not want to lmild over the line of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway, but to take a short cut through Maine : Amend your Bill ; be frank, and say you are going to build from Quebec to a point on the boundary, and name the point. From that you can secure your right through the state of Maine. Let us know where you are going to. But that has not been done. The Bill was passed in committee and comes from committee in this shape, giving them the power, if they wish to exercise it, to build over every mile of road chartered and under contract with this government. I do not think that is a fair proposition at all. It has been said that I raised no objections on behalf of the company that I am speaking for. when the Grand Trunk Bill was in committee. It is true I did not make any protest on that ground, because
I understood that all the people of the eastern provinces were a unit, or ought to be a unit, and I am sure they are, on any question affecting a transcontinental line, when they are seeking an outlet at some Canadian port in the east. I felt there was no doubt about that. If I raised any question for my part as to how they would reach that eastern port in Canadian territory it might be said that I was inconsistent, that while I was pressing this corporation to extend their line in Quebec eastward down to the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, I was throwing obstacles in the way of their doing so. I felt all the time, though interested as president and one-of the directors of the road, that if the company were to build a transcontinental line down to the sea-board, and to build it through Canadian territory, there was no other ground for it to take but over that line.
I really thought at the same time that we should not stand there in the position of stand and deliver, and say :	You cannot
go over there without you pay so much. If the country wanted a through-line we were entitled to take that position, and I believe they will take it yet, whoever constructs the road. But because I was willing to do that, and the company I represent, I daresay, was willing to do that, as this was the only proposition that came before the House as a transcontinental line, that is no reason why our company should sit down and allow a Bill like this to pass this House, taking away rights granted by this parliament and recognized by the government, from a company that is now under contract with the government for the construction of this very road. I do not think it is consistent at all, I do not think that hon. gentlemen ought to press this any further. I simply ask :	Do the company
wish to ignore the legislation of this parliament and deprive the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway of their charter? If they do, then I must say that I will do my best to oppose it. Are they sincere in stating that they do not want to interfere with that road at all, but that they want to go across the state of Maine ? Very well, if they do, let them amend their Bill, or ask that it be sent back to the committee where that amendment may be made. Here is the first clause of the Bill :
' The company may lay out, construct and operate a railway of the gauge of four feet and eight and a half inches, from a point in the city of Quebec to the Quebec bridge on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, and may enter into an agreement with the Quebec Bridge Company for operating the new line of railway over the bridge of the said Quebec Bridge Company, and thence by the most convenient route from the south shore approach of said bridge to a point at or near Moncton.
That is their starting point. We start at Chaudiere Junction near Quebec, and we go in the most convenient direction-not to ' Moncton, because our charter never content-

plated such a line at that time. But so far as it goes it covers the only ground possible in Canadian territory for a transcontinental line to follow. I understand that some slight change has been made in the Bill in committee in regard to one part of the line when it reaches Moncton. I think the Minister of Railways very properly considered that that paralleled the Intercolonial too closely.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Beyond Moncton ?


John Costigan: Near Moncton. It was considered to parallel the Intercolonial, and was therefore amended. I would like also to see the Bill amended in such a waJ? that the rights acquired by Canadian subjects from this parliament, rights which they are legitimately and lawfully enjoying, are not interfered with. I rise to oppose and to protest against this House being iOsk-eil to ignore that company by granting a charter which, in the very wording of it, takes away rights that have already been acquired, which would ignore the company entirely. I presume, Mr. Speaker, that on that motion being carried for you to leave S'?ail'>
we would go into committee on the Bill. Now I do not like to take the position of standing here and wearying the House. I think I have said enough'to show that I have pretty good reasons for making objection to the progress of this Bill in its present shape. If you leave the Chair and tile House goes into committee, I will have other and more convenient opportunities of discussing it, because I would rather speak often than a long time at once.


Hance James Logan: May I ask the hon. gentleman how much road his company has completed, how much road has been completed by the New Brunswick and Quebec Railway Company ?


John Costigan: Without giving full details, I will give the information that has been given to the Committee of Railways and Canals with respect to this Bill. The company have done all that is necessary to hold their rights under the charter, and they have complied with the law in every respect so far as I know, both in subscribing their stock and in conducting their business, in taking a contract from the government to build a portion of the road, in commenc-, ing the work within the time stipulated, in' buying and paying for the right of way, and in many other ways. But I do not wish to give any more details. If the company has forfeited its charter, then let that be said.


John Graham Haggart: How much of it have you built on the River St. Francis, for Instance ?


John Costigan: We have only started. I do not suppose there has been [DOT]over $20,000 expended on it.


John Costigan: 


John Graham Haggart: But is not a part of that line built ?


John Costigan: No, we only commenced last year. We could not get the rails. When I made the inquiries myself I found we could not get first class Canadian rails, they told us the best they could do was to give us English rails, first class rails delivered at Quebec for $45 a ton, and we would have to pay for carrying them across to L6vis and the freight from there down; so we did not buy the rails. But that question is entirely aside from the question asked me. It is true the gentleman who asked me the question may say that behind him are men who will do a great deal more. I think perhaps they would. But we have done all that the law required us to do. If not, let them show that the company is in default and let them wipe out the charter. But the charter is not wiped out, the charter is in existence and legally in force, and their contract is in existence.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Was not this matter discussed before committee 5


John Costigan: The Bill was never discussed in committee. The promoter of the Bill told me he would not bring it in my absence. I was away, and he kept his word. The next day there was a meeting of the committee,-and the Bill was called. I was in the city, but not in the committee, and when I came to the House, and went upstairs, I found that another gentleman, not knowing the discussion that had taken place between us. had called the Bill, in good faith, I daresay. The Bill went through, but there was no discussion, that is, there was no chance so far as I was concerned as representing the other company, and no chance for me to offer any opposition, or to ask for any amendment in that committee. I think the Bill ought to go back to the committee to be amended.


Hance James Logan: I am sorry that I cannot oblige the hon. member for Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan). I think if ever a man had a weak case when asking for a Bill to be sent back to the committee, the hon. member has shown a weak case to-day. I am not going to occupy the time of the House at present, and I regret that the hon. gentleman has seen fit to throw out the threat that he is going to weary the House by talking upon this question, when it goes into committee and so on. The facts of the matter are that the Bill providing for the construction of the Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia Railway is a Bill to allow of a construction of a railway to connect with the Great Northern Railway. That railway is at present controlled by Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann, and this Bill authorizes them to connect that railway with a maritime province port. It is a well known fact that the Canadian Northern Railway, or

597S
the Mackenzie & Mann system of railways, control the Canadian Northern Railway through the province of Quebec which gives them a summer port. They desire to secure a winter port, and for that purpose they are,
I think, entitled to get this charter which is before the House at the present time. Now, the hon. member for Victoria is a director of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company. I am not going to discuss the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company. If it becomes necessary to discuss the progress of that company, I think I might be able to show that the progress lias not been such as will commend the enterprise to this House, but I do not think it worth while to discuss that, because of the position it occupies at the present time. The Bill which is now before the House was before the Railway Committee for a considerable length of time. I knew that there were some gentlemen interested in it and I spoke to them and asked them when it would be convenient for us to discuss the Bill in the Railway Committee. It never was convenient until last Thursday, when the hon. member for Victoria came to me and said that he desired to attend a picnic on Thursday, and asked me if I would agree to allow the Bill to go over. While it had been hanging for a long time, I allowed the Bill to go over, although the hon. gentleman did not go to the picnic, but happened to be in the committee. The Bill was brought up on Friday last. I was there myself. The Bill was discussed, it was amended at the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair), it went through without a dissenting vote, and now we are asked, when it comes up here by the unanimous consent of the Railway Committee, amended and endorsed by the Minister of Railways and Canals, which amendments were accepted by me as the promoter of the Bill, to consent to send this Bill back to the committee simply because the hon. member for Victoria did not happen to be in the committee, and because the hon. gentleman happens to be a director of another company which has a charter for a small part of the country over which this charter authorizes the construction of a line. I do not think he has made out a case that will commend itself to this House.
Mi-. CLARKE. How far would your road parallel his ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: I do not know that it will parallel it at all. I think there is room enough for all ; but that aside, the application for this charter was made before the application for the Grand Trunk Railway charter. Now, we have granted the charter to the Grand Trunk Railway. I am willing that another road that is going to be a transcontinental road shall also get down there. They simply come and ask for the passage of this Bill. The argument of the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan) is no good when you consider that this House has passed the Grand Trunk Railway Bill. Now the Grand Trunk Railway Bill, will kill him, and he cannot be killed any worse by a second Bill. The fight, if there is to be a fight, will be between the Grand Trunk Railway and this company. He is dead already if there is anything in liis contention, because the Grand Trunk Railway Bill is passed, authorizing it to construct to Moncton, an all-Canadian route through Canadian territory.


An hon. MEMBER.: It has not passed yet.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It has passed through the committee and it is going to pass through this House ; so that, there is nothing gained and there is nothing that the hon. gentleman has to fear. As the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Hon. Mr. Blair) said in the committee, before a road is in operation, if two or more parties come and ask for a charter, give it to them. After a road is built, equipped and in operation, there are rights that should be respected. But I think, now that the Grand Trunk Railway Bill has passed the committee. Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann have the right to the Bill which they desire to enable them to connect with their own road and to connect with the lower provinces. Therefore, I cannot see any ground for sending the Bill back.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Have the gentlemen of whom the hon. member for Victoria (Hon. Mr. Costigan) speaks lost any time in going on with their work since they got their charter ?


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Much time.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into committee on the Bill.
John Costigan: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into any personal discussion with any of my hon. friends in this House, but I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) in whose name the Bill stands was a little in error when he stated the conditions upon which the Bill stood over. He said that I had asked him after his arrangements were made and when his friends had found it convenient to meet and take up the Bill on a certain day, to have the Bill held over because I wanted to go to a picnic. No, I did not ask that at all. We discussed the Bill, and it is true I stated I was going to a picnic, and I did go to a picnic. Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. gentleman said I was present in the committee, I did go to the picnic.


Hance James Logan: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon.


John Costigan: And I had a very pleasant time.


Mr. KEMP.: That was on Thursday ?


John Costigan: It was on Dominion day. On Thursday the committee met again.


Hance James Logan: The committee did not meet on Dominion day.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Then there were two picnics.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The other fellows had the picnic next day.


John Costigan: Yes, the picnic was here the next day. I was absent from that unfortunately. I feel myself a little embarrassed in speaking as I do and in opposing a charter behind which stand men for whom I have the greatest respect and in whose ability to build a railway I have the greatest confidence. If that firm had come forward to this parliament and proposed to build an all-Canadian transcontinental line I would have held up both hands for it in preference to the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway. The hon. gentleman who promotes this Bill says that he does not want to go into a discussion of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company or their affairs. Well, I am glad of that, but I hope he does not want to create the impression that there is anything in the transactions of that company which the company are afraid to discuss openly in parliament. The company have been properly organized, as I have said before, and I cannot see the necessity of this Bill. It is true there is a small portion of the line of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway Company in my own constituency, and so far as the rights of my constituents are concerned, I feel it is my duty as well as my right to speak for and advocate their interests and rights. It passes through six counties in Quebec, and I know that every one of these six counties wants that road constructed and has been waiting for it for years. The people in these counties have been promised the road and they want to see it constructed. The question has been asked of the promoter of this Bill, how far the company behind this charter would be likely to parallel the existing line of the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway, and now an hon. gentleman says: Well, I do not know but I think there is room for several railways there. That might be, if you could build railways irrespective of the formation of the country. But there is notably but one single available line open for a railway there, and that is to follow the St. Francis valley, or if you go to the state of Maine you can get through .the St. John valley, but you would have to pass through American territory. By following the St. Francis valley you can keep in Canadian territory and get good grades. That is the reason why the Quebec and New Brunswick Company took that particular route. There is just one point, and it is very pronounced on some of the maps, that juts in there
and our company could have shortened its line twelve or fourteen miles by cutting across that nose of land, but we would have to go through American territory, and we would not have got as good grades. Why is it that the gentlemen in charge of this Bill are not a little more definite in their location of the railway. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Logan) defines the line from the city of Quebec right up the north shore of the St. Lawrence. There is only one place there where you could go and get to the bridge and cross the bridge to the approach on the south side. But when they get to the south side they propose to reach a point at or near Moncton without one syllable in the Bill to indicate by which route they are going to get there. When the promoter of the Bill defines his line so plainly from the city of Quebec to Chaudiere Junction, why is it that he does not define the route from Chaudiere to Moncton. Will it come between the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway and parallel the Intercolonial along the borders of the St. Lawrence? If it does it will have to follow that route all the way, because we all know that the Temiscouata Railway was built across that country from River du Loup to the valley of St. John and the grades on that road are such as to make it almost impossible to carry on a business traffic on that road. Successful railway operation to-day has resolved itself into a question of good road-bed and light grades, and you cannot handle traffic, nor can you pretend to successfully give an outlet to products of the west unless you have such a road as will handle the greatest amount of traffic with the least expenditure of power. Some persons have said that we ought not be uneasy because they do not intend to touch our road at all. Well, they are going from Chaudi&re to Moncton, and if they <2o not go by the valley of the St. Lawrence or by the valley of the St. Francis or through the air, they will have to go through the state of Maine. I admit that it is shorter for them to go through the state of Maine, but if they intend to do that why don't they say so ? I do not ask that the Bill should specify what particular parts of Maine they should go through, because we have no right to say anything about that, but let them indicate what route they will take after they get to Chaudiere Junction. Why should this parliament allow them to take a route that will practically destroy an existing charter which is now in process of being worked out. If it is the contention of these gentlemen that the Quebec and New Brunswick Railway have not made more rapid progress, I can tell them that we have reasonably complied with the requirements of our Act and this very session parliament has passed a Bill extending the time for the extension of our charter, putting us in a position to go on with the work. It is true


Albert Edward Kemp: that we liaye been delayed and one of the causes of delay was that financial arrangements could not be made until the government of Quebec had aided the portion of the line going through that province, there being about 110 miles, out of a total of 135 in the province of Quebec.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How would the proposed Grand Trunk Pacific Railway arrangement affect you financially ?


John Costigan: I do not know what form the Grand Trunk Pacific scheme will take, nor do I know what it will be when it gets to this parliament.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Nobody else seems to know much about it.


John Costigan: I presume that if a transcontinental line is to be built it will be carried through to some Canadian port on the Atlantic. I would not complain if the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway would absorb the Quebec and New Brunswick. As one man I will say that I have no desire to block a great enterprise like that, but because I am willing to go that far, [DOT]does it mean that I am going to give the same concession to another company. It is true the promoters of this Bill say that it is part of a transcontinental line.


John Costigan: There are three miles of it partly finished.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose there is a good deal of grading done ?


John Costigan: The grading is partly done, the right of way bought and paid for, and the plans and surveys over the . first section made and approved of by the Governor tin Council.


David Tisdale: You are not default in your charter ?


John Costigan: No, and we have been able to show that or parliament would not have extended the time.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What suggestion have you got to make with regard to the other charter ?


John Costigan: I suggest that they should define their line from Ohaudiere Junction to Moncton more distinctly. Do they want to go over the road we propose to build or do they want to go to the left of it. All I ask them to say is that they will agree to a clause stating that it shall not be prejudicial to our charter.


Hon. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.).: When was your charter first obtained ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Part of the Mackenzie & Mann scheme.


John Costigan: I have no desire to throw any obstacle in their way, but I have naturally a very strong desire to see that there should be some respect paid to what little rights we have there. I am well aware that I may have to submit to the forces that are behind this Bill and that I may have nothing for my trouble but a little talk, but whether that be so or not, I intend to talk very plainly about it. I say that if this charter passes through it will cause disappointment to a great many people in the province of Quebec and in the province of New Brunswick as well. It will cause more than disappointment. I think I would have the right to complain that there is a want of good faith somewhere. The first subsidy was granted by the federal parliament to the Quebec and New Brunswick road for three miles of that road extending from Connors' Station to the mouth of the St. Francis before the charter was obtained. Then when the charter was obtained, the Dominion government subsidized sixty miles of the whole road, making sixty-three miles of a Dominion subsidy, and forty-five miles of that subsidy was put on the Quebec end and fifteen miles upon the New Brunswick end so as to give assurance to the people of both the provinces interested that the road would not be diverted to any other place.


Mr. COCHRANE.: How many miles of it is built ?


John Costigan: In 1900 or 1901. As far as the charter is concerned, if any one wishes to argue that the company has not made great progress I plead guilty to that. I do not want to make any dishonest claim or profession. We made no great progress for the reason I have stated. The railway runs through six counties in the province of Quebec and only through one county in the province of New Brunswick, and over 100 miles out of the 130 is situated in the province of Quebec. We were waiting until the government of the province of Quebec could grant aid for that portion of the line running through that province. But we made the commencement on the New Brunswick end, where we had a subsidy. We made a contract, we have not forfeited our contract, we bought the right of way and paid for it, we made our survey, and we came to this parliament this session, I acting for the company, and asked for an' extension of time. The Bill passed this House and the Senate, and we got the extension of time. I do not think it is a strong argument to criticise the legal standing of the company. It is a fair argument to say that we have not made very rapid progress. I admit that. It is no argument to say that the gentlemen who are seeking this charter are men who would push this road vigorously. I believe that too. But if they are going to build through Maine, I have not the same interest in the road, nor have I the same objection to it. This is not a matter I am now prepared to discuss ; but I think I am entitled to have

some explanation as to tbe location of the road.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: It is impossible definitely to say that. But this company is composed of some of the best men in Canada. The man who represents it in Nova Scotia, Mr. Graham Fraser, is a man whose name is a household word. The idea is to go through Canadian territory, if such can be done ; but they simply ask for the chance of building and operating by the most convenient route. They cannot say anything more. They cannot name the places through which they would build because the places they might name here might not furnish the best route. I think the hon. gentleman's fears will be found to be groundless. For myself I want to see the railroad built through Canadian territory. I do not know the best route, but if it is impossible to build it through Canadian territory, and if the hon. gentleman's line is to be built as well as the Grand Trunk, perhaps they may get a charter for a line through Maine. But in the meantime, as the Grand Trunk is to be built to Moncton, I think we should not prevent these people getting a charter to do the same thing. If any injury is done to the hon. gentleman's scheme, it has been done already by the Grand Trunk.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The Grand Trunk Bill is not passed yet.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: Well, it is as good as passed. They are going to get their Bill. We were in the field first. Mackenzie and Mann -want this system in order to connect with the lower provinces and to reach Moncton by the most convenient route. I think my hon. friend will find that his interest will not be at all prejudiced, and that nothing will be done to interfere with his route. I am sure that Messrs. Mackenzie & Mann are broad minded enough not to hurt his road. But I must come back to the other argument, because it strikes me as a complete answer, that already there is a Bill before this House, which is sure to go through the House, which puts him in that position already.


John Costigan: I do not want to weary the House, or to obstruct, or to keep other Bills behind ; but I do say that there is a regular way of proceeding. I obtained information as to the steps I could take, and, after getting advice, I had a notice prepared, finding that I must give notice of an amendment to this Bill, and it is in the hands of the clerk. It will not appear before to-morrow, so that I shall have no chance of moving it till then. Under these circumstances, I think it is a little hard to forces this Bill through. The hon gentlemen have a strong combination behind them, but they ought not to use their strength to force this Bill through, when I say that it is not Hon. Mr. COSTIGAN.
a fair thing to do. I am assured that tins charter will not hurt us-that its promoters only desire to take the most convenient route. Well, a very convenient thing for a new company to do is to work on the experience of forty years, and to take the only convenient route recognized in that country. When the Intercolonial Railway was undertaken, a line was surveyed through the St. Francis river country, and it was the line approved of.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: What is the hon. gentleman's amendment ?


John Costigan: The amendment is that the Bill shall go back to the committee, and define the proposed route approximately through the province of Quebec, if no further.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is not done in the Grand Trunk Bill, and, if my memory serves me rightly, in the hon. gentleman's own Bill the definite points one after another are not named.


Hance James Logan: I do not think there is anything in the hon. gentleman's contention that we should define the exact points where this road shall run. We have passed many Bills through this House in which the paints are not defined. Unexpected difficulties may arise, and we must give some latitude to the people who are putting large sums of money into these enterprises. The hon. member for Victoria, N.B., is the last man whose interests we desire to prejudice. He said we have a good deal of strength behind us, and I think we have a good deal of strength In this House. As the promoter of the Bill, I will agree that the location of the line be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council. I do rot think I could do anything fairer than that.


John Graham Haggart: My hon. friend from Victoria, N.B. (Hon. Mr. Costigan) has to my knowledge been promoting this railway for a number of years. It runs through his own county, and through the St. Francis river country to Ghaudiere Junction, and it has what I think the only feasible connection, so far as gradients are concerned, between New Brunswick and the Chaudiere bridge. He says there was a load built via Temiscouata, but its gradients were such that it could not be used for freight purposes at all. I think the promoter of this Bill ought to grant the hon. member's request, because, as I understand, the Bill was reported on Friday, and he had not an opportunity to give notice for the reconsideration of the Bill before to-day. He says he had the notice prepared and was ready with it when the Bill came up for consideration, but according to the rules of the House, he has not had time to give notice before, and all he asks the promoter

of tlie Bill to do is to leave it over until the next day for private Bills in order that liis amendment may be considered. I think it is but just to the hon. member for Victoria, N.B., that the Bill should be left over.


John Costigan: I am arguing this Bill not from stubborness, but from honour. I am connected with others who are interested in this matter. One of the directors is in England. And before he went he made me-he did not require to make me promise, but he knew that I would-fight for the interests of our charter against anything that would unfairly prejudice it. I am only one, and have the least interest in it. But the burden is laid upon me, and that is why I make the fight; and it is laid upon me, perhaps, because they know I would make the fight the best I could. Will not the hon. gentleman have some consideration for a man who at least thinks he has the right to claim what he does claim, and agree to leave this Bill over for another day, in the meantime, they may see their way to make some allowance for the position I am in.


Duncan Cameron Fraser: That is all right.
Progress reported.



BRANDON, SASKATCHEWAN AND HUDSON'S BAY RAILWAY COMPANY.

[Stage Direction]
House went into committee on Bill (No. 157) to incorporate the Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson's Bay Railway Company.- Mr. Stewart.
On section 10,
David Henderson: Before section 10 is adopted, I have an amendment to propose. When this Bill was before the Railway Committee, there seemed to be some feeling on the part of the members of that committee that possibly there was little or no intention on the part of the promoters to construct this railway. I believe that a great many Bills are being introduced In this House to charter railway companies where the real intention of the promoters is unknown, no attempt being made to show that the provisional directors have the ability to build the road or have any real intention of proceeding with it. It is felt, I know, by other members of the committee besides myself that many of these Bills are simply put upon the statute book to give the provisional directors an opportunity of dealing with some company of real railway builders.
I realize that we are chartering far too many railways in that fashion, and I think some restriction should be put upon the power of these concerns to alienate their charters or holding up some railway company that wishes to construct a line of railway over the same route. If 188
the intention of the company is a genuine one, if they intend to construct the road and put it in operation, the amendment I now propose will in no way interfere with them. But if the charter is not intended to be acted upon by these promoters, if it is simply to be held until some other charter is asked for to build over the same territory and then to hold up the company asking for it, the amendment will have the effect of preventing the incorporators under this charter from interfering with or unduly harassing any company that may want to build the road. Section 10 reads as follows :-
The company may enter into an agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway Company or the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for conveying or leasing to such company the railway of the company, in whole or in part, or any rights or powers acquired under this Act.
1 contend that this company should not be empowered to enter into any agreement to convey its charter or any of the rights that are given under this Bill until they have practically completed their road. If they have a bona tide intention of building the road, the amendment I propose will not hinder them, but it will prevent their holding up another railway company which might want to construct the road. Therefore. I move that after the word ' may,' in the first line of section 10, the following words be inserted : ' After the said railway has been constructed and put in operation, but not before.' The clause will then read :
' The company may, after such railway has been constructed and put in operation, but not before, enter into an agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway Company, the Canadian Pacific Railway,' and so on.


Mr. GALLIHER.: I am not interested in this Bill in any way, but I was in the Railway Committee when the same objection and the same proposition were made by the hon. member for Halton. Does it not strike the hon. gentleman that it is rather late in the day to propose an amendment of that kind ? We have up to the present, during this session and during preceding sessions, passed through railway Bills containing exactly the same clause. Why should we single out this particular scheme and apply this restriction to it ? While I entirely agree in the suggestion of the hon. member, because I do not believe in what is known as charter mongering, I do not see why we should impose a restriction in this Bill, at this stage of the session, which you have not imposed in any others of a similar nature. If we intend to apply the principle advocated by the hon. member, let us start at the beginning of a session with the first Bill before the Railway Committee, and then we will not be accused of unfairness and discrimination.


David Henderson: I do not consider that this amendment will in any way interfere



with the operations of the promoters if they really intend constructing this road.


William Alfred Galliher: Does it not discriminate against them ?


David Henderson: The hon. gentleman asks why this road should be singled out ?
I would simply reply that the evil has been a growing one, and we must begin some time to put a stop to it. Why should we not begin with this Bill ? I may relieve the hon. gentleman's mind if I tell him that to the end of this session I shall be very careful to propose the same amendment to every railway charter that comes before this House, when I have any suspicion that the promoters are simply getting the charter for the purpose of selling it. I am sorry the lion. Minister of Railways is not in his place, but I may say that he took a strong view in the Railway Committee on this question, and stated that next session of parliament he would deal with it, so that the only question is whether we should begin now or wait until another session. My impression is that now is the time to stop the evil, instead of waiting for another session, and possibly passing a dozen or two of charters before this session closes.
X hope, therefore, that the committee will accept this amendment, more especially as it will not prevent the construction of this road if the promoters are in earnest.


Mr. BARKER.: The amendment proposed is, in my judgment, very useful and important. If it affected no other object, it would probably save some weeks of the time of parliament every session. Hundreds of Acts are on the statute-books granting charters which were never obtained with the slightest idea on the part of the promoters of constructing the railways in ques-. tion. The promoters in each case simply spent a couple of hundred dollars to get through a charter in the hope of being able to sell it at a profit to somebody else, and the amendment suggested would put an end to that practice. Why incorporate companies and authorize them to sell railways which they have no intention of constructing ? If these various promoters had built their railways, there might be some reason for enabling them to sell or lease their property, but they simply get a charter and the power to sell it and put that charter on the market for sale. There is not an bon. member in this House who believes that in one charter out of ten granted here for the building of railways the promoters are competent to go on with the work. Their sole object is, not to build, to sell out their charter to some existing company at a profit, and thus pass on to some other company the very work wiiich we authorize them to construct. I think it is about time to put a stop to that sort of thing. The hon. member for Yale (Mr. Gallilier) says we should not begin this session but wait until next session. But at the beginning of next ses-Mr. HENDERSON.
sion we will have the same objection raised again. There are scores of people paying out money to get Bills printed and drafted, and going to all sorts of expense, in the expectation of getting charters, with this clause inserted, giving them the right to sell ; and if we were to decide now that we would not give this right, we would save these people considerable expense and trouble. The best thing we can do is to take all the Bills coming before us this session and strike out this clause, and thus give full notice to all further applicants for railway charters what they may expect.


William Alfred Galliher: It seems strange that the voice of the hon. gentleman was never raised before against this prevailing iniquity. It has been said that the hon. Minister of Railways has given notice that next session he would deal with this matter. Well, that will go abroad. Those people who come here with Bills prepared for next session will have learned of this discussion through the ' Hansard ' or through the newspapers, and if they go to the expense of printing these Bills and putting these clauses in, they will have themselves to blame, because they were warned beforehand. The very fact that the minister gave notice that at the beginning of the next session these matters will be taken into strict consideration, to my mind argues that in fairness this rule should not be applied this session, but that every one should start on an equal basis next session. Now we are, all here; the hon. gentleman who has spoken as well as the rest of us, I think, are here to do what we consider fair between the different applicants who come to us in the Railway Committee, or in any other committee with Bills of this kind. In that view, I contend that we should not start in towards the end of what is a long session to cut out clauses in railway Bills or others that we have allowed to pass under exactly similar circumstances in former cases during the present session. That is all I ask, I ask that this Bill be treated exactly the same as other Bills this session. If we have started in on a particular line and have followed it through during the present session so far, let us carry it out and be fair to all parties.
Amendment negatived . Yeas, 19; nays, 29.
Bill reported.


Mr. SPEAKER.: When shall the Bill be read a third time ?


David Henderson: I desire to move au amendment to the third reading.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: We must first settle the question whether the Bill be read forthwith or later.


David Henderson: If it is to be read now,! I wish to move an amendment.
Mr. DAVIS moved that the Bill be now read a third time.
598b


David Tisdale: Under the rules of the House you have to give twenty-four hours notice before you can move an amendment. I am raising the point of order. I am calling the attention of Mr. Speaker to the point that was raised by the hon. member for Haltou (Mr. Henderson), because there is a conflict between these two orders. *Certainly the rules of the House are not intended to cut away the right of any man to move an amendment.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There is nothing which prevents the hon. member from moving his amendment now, because I see that he has given notice that he will move an amendment in committee on the third reading. .


David Henderson: I beg to move that the Rill be referred back to committee with instructions to insert after the word ' may ' in the first line of the tenth clause, the following words :
After said railway has been constructed and put in operation, but not before.


David Tisdale: I wish to raise a second point of order that the twenty-four hour rule should prevail. If you allow stages to be taken without unanimous consent, it will open the door for amendments without the required notice having been given. If this amendment is allowed, it must be because Mr. Speaker holds that you need not give notice of an amendment on the third reading, and the consequence would be that very important amendments might be moved without notice. Unless Mr. Speaker rules that this notice is the same notice the amendment has already been given notice of, he would be opening the door to any sort of motion being made on the third reading.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I call attention to the House that the hon. member for Halton has given notice of a motion that he would move on t}ie third reading the amendment which he has just now moved. His amendment will be found in the Votes and Proceedings of July 3.


David Henderson: The notice reads : * In Committee of the Whole, or on the third reading.'


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I rule that he has a j-ight to move his amendment on the third reading, even if he has moved it in Committee of the Whole.
Amendment negatived.
Motion agreed to : Bill read the third time, on division, and passed.



SECOND READINGS.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 214) for the relief of Florence Lee Gray.-Mr. Scott.
Bill (No. 210) An Act respecting the Nipis-sing and Ottawa Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 216) An Act respecting the Midway and Vernon Railway Company.-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 216) respecting the Midland and Vernon Railway Company-Mr. Galliher.
Bill (No. 210) respecting the Nipissing and Ottawa Railway Company.-Mr. McCool.
Bill (No. 213) to incorporate the Citizen's Bank of Canada.-Mr. Clarke


[Stage Direction]
Mr. BELL-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
1.	Has the government been advised that E.C. Senkler, gold commissioner of the Yukon, has granted free representation to A. N. C. Tread-gold and his associates ?
2.	If so, by what authority has the gold commissioner acted ?
3.	To what extent has Treadgold been relieved
of the payment of fees, or representations ?	_
4.	Is the ground which Treadgold holds, or is supposed to hold, open for location, because lio representation has been done upon it ?
5.	If the Gold Commissioner was wrong in his interpretation of the regulations, what steps have been taken to correct the error ?
6.	What money has the Treadgold syndicate paid to the government in representation fees since the granting of the original concession 1
The MINISTER OF THE INTERIOR (Hon. Clifford Sifton).: 1.	Yes.	.
2.	The -Gold Commissioner gave as his authority the provisi- ns of an Order in Council of the 21st April, 1902, but the department disagreed with the holding of the Gold Commissioner and ordered him to collect representation fees.
3.	Answered under question two.
4.	Representation money having been paid upon the claims they were presumably in the same position as any other claims upon which fees have been paid.
5.	Answered under question two.
6.	The claims which are the property of the syndicate have been recorded in the name" of individual members of the company. The department is not able to say what representation fees upon these claims have been paid since the date of the original concession. The amount paid upon the claims stated in the records of the department to be held on behalf of the company during last year was $3,726.00.


SIR JOHN BOYD.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. TAYLOR-by Mr. Lancaster-asked :
What amount of money has Sir John A. Boyd, now chancellor of the province of Ontario, received from the Dominion treasury, for services outside his regular salary as a judge, since August 1. 1896 ?
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: The Public Accounts do not show any payments of the character indicated to Sir John Boyd. Sir John Boyd was appointed by the province of Ontario to be one of the arbitrators in the matters of account between the provinces and the

Dominion. That appointment was made under an Act passed in 1891 in the time of Sir John Macdonald. The expenses of the arbitrators are paid jointly by the two provinces and the Dominion government contributes something to the expenses of the arbitrators, but the division is made by the arbitrators and our returns show only the sum paid to the clerk of the exchequer court for the purposes of the common fund, but we hare no specific payments made to Sir John Boyd.


SURETIES FOR J. G. GRANT, BARRIE.
[Stage Direction]
Mr. BENNETT-by Mr. Lancaster-asked:
Who was the surety, or who were the sureties, if any, for J. G. Grant, Barrie, who, upon page B-2, Auditor General's Report, under heading of Department of Customs, is reported to be in default for the sum of $1,130? What position, if a government official, did said Grant fill ; and under what circumstances was such indebtedness incurred ? '
The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS (Hon. Wm. Paterson).: The following were sureties for J. G. Grant:-
C. H. Ross, of Barrie, and A. C. Thompson, on bond dated 22nd May, 1887; C. H. Ross, of Barrie, and John Davidson, of Angus, on bond dated 12th October, 1891;
J. G. Grant was formerly sub-collector of customs at Barrie, Ontario.
Grant's indebtedness was incurred on account of customs duties collected by him prior to 1894.


ALIEN ACT AMENDMENT.
[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) moved the third reading of Bill (No. 204) to amend the Acts relating to naturalization and aliens. He said : The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Lancaster) the other day put to me the question as to whether it would not be advisable to have this Bill apply only to the North-west Territories and to leave the law as it is in the other provinces. I gave the reason for the legislation when the Bill was discussed the other day and I said that we thought in the North-west Territories on account of the large aggregation of population that frauds might take place in connection with applications for naturalization. According to the information we had some frauds had taken place. This statement of mine was rather resented by my hon. friend from Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) who declared that he knew of no frauds having taken place and that the character of the population was such as in his opinion to preclude any possibility of it. I am glad to hear and the country at large will be glad to know that the character of the people we are getting into the North-west Territories is so exceptional that there has not been and there will not be any violation of the laws of the land. At all events, even if that be so, we think the law is a wise one.
Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: The applicants will be very numerous and we deem it essential that some notice shall be given to parties of any application so that if objection is to be taken it can be taken after due notice. This reasoning does not seem to apply with the same force in the other provinces but I think my hon. friend will admit that it is better to have a uniform law" than to have a law something which is the law in one part of the country and which is not the law in another part of the country.


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

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. C. E. KAULBACH (Lunenburg).: Seeing the Minister of Customs in his seat, I desire to bring to his notice a subject of vital importance to the fishing and shipping interests of the maritime provinces.
The case I desire to present to the minister's notice is this ; The seizure of the schooner ' Markland.' The schooner ' Mark-land,' Captain Begin, Master, of 99 tons, belonging to the port of Mahone Bay, N.S., was returning some few weeks ago from the fishing grounds off Cape Breton, in Nova Scotia waters, her destination being the port to which she belonged-Mahone Bay-to discharge a small catch of fish, and owing to heavy weather, and a dense fog prevailing when off Halifax harbour, she put into that pore as a place of refuge, anchoring Jnside of Georges Island, having reached that port about 11 o'clock in the morning of the 15tl) of June, 1903, and the next morning at 5 o'clock-the 16th of June-weighed anchor and proceeded on her voyage. On the afternoon of the 15th, and whilst the vessel was at anchor, a boat drew up beside the vessel, and one of the boats' crew asked the deck hand, who chanced to be on the deck of the vessel at the time, where the vessel was from, and whither bound, which was answered, that they were from the fishing grounds off Cape Breton, and bound to Mahone Bay. Had this official asked for the captain of the 'Markland' and advised him of the requirements of the port and the necessity of his reporting inward, the captain would have complied with his request, which I contend the official should have done, and thereby avoided serious loss, and inconvenience, as well as annoyance to owners and fishermen. But instead of which, he-the Tide Waiter, or official, reported the vessel to flie officer of customs at Halifax, who acting on the information, advised the customs officer at Mahone Bay to seize the vessel for an offence of the Customs Act, requiring a bond, and deposit of $400-the maximum penalty-awaiting the decision of yourself, the minister here at Ottawa.

The master of the schooner informed me that he had great difficulty in obtaining the .$400-during which time the vessel was detained at a serious loss to owners and crew.
The master further stated that this was his first voyage as master, and that he was impressed with an idea that had he been in port 24 hours, he would have been required to report, but even on this he had a doubt, as tlfe vessel was engaged in fishing. As a fisherman merely entering the port for a place of refuge, and awaiting a chance to proceed on her voyage, not intending to land, or take anything on board and with no intent of wrong doing is a hardship which you yourself, Sir, I feel will realize, and which is recognized, I can assure you by all fishermen, and those engaged in shipping. as indeed cruel. And in view of the facts, I consider the owners and master should be released from the payment of any penalty, as they suffered sufficiently already from the action of the sub-official, in not- when he'was at the side of the vessel at Halifax asking for the captain, and informing him of what the port required-unless the object of the sub-official in not advising the master, was greed, plunder or ill-gotten gain, to supply his own pocket, in which case I contend lie should be severely reprimanded.
1 feel it my duty, Sir, to bring this matter to your notice considering it a great hardship that our vessel fishermen should be compelled to report at every port along the Nova Scotia shore they enter for refuge, or a supply of bait, when they have nothing to land, or take from the port. In fact I do not consider it was ever Intended that fishermen should be placed under such rigid ruling, as they would find themselves in such cases at a serious sacrifice to carry such ruling out, so much so that they would have to abandon the industry of fishing entirely.
With the manipulation of interests in the markets of the West Indies where the fish are principally disposed of, competitionbeing so keen, we can barely have a margin of profit at all, but if those engaged in deep-sea fishing are to be told, and required when their vessels enter a port for refuge or for bait that they must report to the Customs every time, I mean vessels engaged in the fisheries, and their vessels detained till the Customs official puts in an appearance in his office at ten o'clock in the morning, it would be extremely hard, and ns the representative of the largest fishing constituency in the Dominion, I strongly protest against such ruling, and ask that the Customs official of the port of Halifax, and every other port along the sea-girt shore, be advised that fishing vessels, actually engaged in fishing, shall when entering a port for shelter from a storm, or seeking bait, be relieved of reporting to the Customs, unless they are in port over twenty-four hours.
1 must ask the Minister of Customs to realize the serious inconvenience such ruling as I have referred to, such as was dealt out to the schooner ' Markland ' would be to the deep-sea fishermen, and the sacrifice to the fishing industry in general, in being so hampered by this unnecessary requirement, and I here ask the minister to have in future all fishing vessels actually engaged in fishing, relieved of such a requirement so unnecessary and unreasonable.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: I may say to the hon. gentleman that had I known he wrould bring this matter to the attemion of the House this afternoon T would have refreshed my memory as to the particulars. However, I shall take care that the department will have its attention called to the remarks and suggestions of the hon. gentleman, and if it can be found with perfect safety that the line of action he suggests may be adopted, of course v*e would be prepared to adopt it. There is no desire to harass any one in that way, but, in order to prevent illicit traffic we have found it necessary to be a little more strict in reference 1o these matters than perhaps was hitherto the case. I will bring the suggestions of the hon. gentleman to the attention of the officers of the department.
lion. Mr. ROSS (Victoria, N.S.). I would like to say to the hon. member for Lunen-iierg (Mr. Kaulbach) that there will be no necessity for a vessel being detained until ten o'clock as she can enter at the customs house at nine o'clock in the morning. There is a steam boat in connection with the customs house that boards all the vessels that come into the port, and when the other side of the story will be known from the report made by- the officer himself, it will be found that he just warned the man he saw on deck that the vessel must report to the customs house. With that warning given to tlie man, it should have been obeyed. Instead of that, the vessel proceeded to sea without reporting to the customs house at all. If you are going to widen this gap, and allow vessels to go into port and leave again without reporting within twenty-four hours, you do not know' the'mischief you are going to create. The customs collector at Halifax, under whose instructions these men are working, cannot be too careful in seeing that all vessels comply with the regulations, and that there shall be no exception between those who enter and those who w'ill not enter.


Charles Edwin Kaulbach: A part of my complaint the hon. member for Victoria, I do not think understands. My complaint is that this official who spoke the vessel lying at anchor in Halifax harbour, spoke to a deck-hand, whereas he should have asked for the master of the vessel, and should have informed him w'hat the requirements of the port yvere. He wou'd have been

only too willing to comply witli the request that would have been made to him by that official. But he was entirely ignorant of such a rule, and felt satisfied that he was only compelled to report if he were in port twenty-four hours. My hon. friend from Victoria does not seem to realize this fact.


William Ross: I realize this fact, that the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Kaulbach) has the report from his captain, but where is the report which the Minister of Customs has from the collector at Halifax ? Because there are always two sides to a story of this kind.


Mr. BELL.: It would seem that in this case the hon. Minister of Customs has not been informed of the circumstances, and therefore it is impossible to form any opinion as to whether a hardship has been improperly or unintentionally inflicted on the owners of the vessel or on the captain. But I would imagine, in view of the enormous number of fishermen employed about our coasts, and the absolute necessity there, is occasionally of their running into a port and out again, and the great importance of their not being delayed during the fishing season, that the" rule requiring them to report at the customs house should be waived if it can be done. However, I understand that the matter will be further dealt with by the Minister of Customs after he has had time to inquire into it; and it would be unfair to lay too much stress on the incident narrated by my hon. friend from Lunenburg, who I am sure has not overstated the case while there is perhaps no county so greatly interested in the fishing as the county of Lunenburg, still it is of very general interest in the province of Nova Scotia, and I think the Minister of Customs would do well to facilitate as much as possible the business of the fishermen around our coasts, and obviate if possible a repetition of such an occurrence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Before we proceed with the details of the estimates, I desire to avail, myself of an understanding which I have had with the hon. leader of the opposition, and of which 1 made mention on Friday night, by way of notice, with a view of obtaining the consent of the committee to a vote on account. We had a special Supply Bill carried through a few days ago; but that had reference to urgent matters affecting the fiscal year which closed on the 30tli of June. We have now entered on a new fiscal year, and even such an economical government as we now have cannot carry on the affairs of the Dominion without a little money.


Samuel Barker: Have you no credit ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have a credit, but the banks are all the better Mr. KAULBACH.
pleased when we have the Committee of the House of Commons behind us, in which they show their excellent sense. We desire, however, to avoid any difficulties which might arise through the non-payment of clerks and others if we had no Supply Bill before the close of the session, although we hope that blessing may come pretty soon. , I have discussed this matter with the hon. leader of the opposition, who has been good enough to say that he would assist me in securing the passage of a special Supply Bill by which we will take one-fiftli of all the i remaining estimates. On the estimates which the committee have already passed upon, we shall be in a position to-morrow to ask concurrence; and in respect of all the main estimates for the current fiscal year with 1 which the committee has not yet dealt, I propose that the House give us a vote of credit for one-fifth of the total sum. The I effect of this will be to give us a supply for about two months. All the matters that, can be discussed in connection with these votes will, of course, still remain before the House; and we will have to take these upj item by item for the purpose of obtaining the remaining four-fifths of the estimates. So that the course we now propose does not in any way restrict the fullest and freest discussion. It simply facilitates the granting of a partial supply which will be very much needed before the end of the present month. I therefore move :
That a sum not exceeding the amounts set forth below be granted to His Majesty on account of .the following services for the year ending 30th June, 1904.
In each case the item is set forth as it appears in the main estimates, with one-fifth of the amount set beside it. As respects the remaining four-fifths, we will take up each item, upon which the same discussion will take place as if this motion had not been passed.


Robert Laird Borden: The only question which suggests itself to me is as to the effect of the proposed resolution upon items which there might be a motion to strike out or upon items which eventually might be dropped. Has the hon. gentleman considered that ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I admit that would be a proper criticism; and if any particular item were indicated as likely'to be the subject of debate, I would strike it out of the present motion; but if such a motionvshould be presented later, it would apply to' the four-fifths.


Robert Laird Borden: I have no doubt we can arrive at some understanding in a case of that kind between now and eight o'clock, if the hon. gentleman will allow the motion to stand till then.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I will agree to my hon. friend's suggestion, and

perhaps we might in the meantime take up the remaining items of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.j
Additional for services between Canada and Great Britain, $22,083.33.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: Can the hon. gentleman inform us what is the average speed, and whether there has been any acceleration ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Ifrom July to November, 1902, the average was 7 days, 21 hours and 5 minutes, which is a good deal better than it used to be-from Moville to Rimouski.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the average speed ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I think it would be a little over 12 knots an hour.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the hon. gentleman the figures to communicate to the committee ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have simply the days, the average speed will have to be computed. It has somewhat improved on former years, though not quite within the contract time-a few hours over. In winter the average speed was 9 days and 3 hours to Halifax from Moville. in summer the average speed from Moville to Rimouski was 7 days, 21 hours. In winter the average speed from Halifax to Moville was 7 days, 11 hours.


Robert Laird Borden: I thought the hon. gentleman mentioned 9 days ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, in respect of one particular portion of the service-the service from Moville to Halifax in the winter-9 days and 3 hours.


Robert Laird Borden: Was that by the same boats, or was the longer time due to a different class of boats ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Pretty much the same boats seem to have been employed-the ' Parisian,' the ' Bavarian,' the ' Tunisian ' and the ' Corinthian.'


Robert Laird Borden: Will the hon. gentleman explain the cause of this additional vote ?	-


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: 
Edward Frederick Clarke: 
The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The ' Bavarian ' and ' Tunisian ' are larger and better boats. They have much superior accommodation and are somewhat faster. I should say that they average about one and a-half knots faster than the others. The ' Numidian,' the ' Ionian ' and the ' Corinthian ' are not considered at all equal to the ' Bavarian ' and ' Tunisian,' and we reduced the price to them accordingly.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the average speed of the faster boats ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Thirteen to fourteen knots. Fourteen would be the highest rate of speed attained by any of them.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Would the hon. gentleman lay on the Table the average speed made in [DOT] the twelve months ? Fourteen knots is not a bad average through the year.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They did not average that through the year.


John Graham Haggart: The hon. gentleman promised to lay on the Table the agreement for the South African service.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I have it here.


Samuel Hughes: Has the hon. minister taken into consideration the freight rates on produce by the various lines of steamers from Canadian to European ports ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes.


Samuel Hughes: Could we have a statement of that ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I will get that if possible. This, the hon. gentleman will see is merely a side vote. The main vote will come on later, and any information the hon. gentleman wants I will gladly endeavour to procure for him.


Samuel Hughes: The information I want should be prepared in form to

be read by people throughout the country. I think it would be of service to let the people of Ontario, for instance, know that we are being taxed both for railway and steamship purposes to enable American grain to reach Europe cheaply. Ontario farmers pay higher freights on their cattle and grain

	.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Hughes, Victoria) will let me know what particular point he wishes to cover


Samuel Hughes: I mean all points. If the hon. minister will look at the American returns of Trade and Commerce, he will find that the figures issued by the government show the freight rate on all classes of goods from the main points in the country to other main points within the country, and also the rates per mile on the main classes of produce, as well as the rates on steamers from the principal ports to European ports. If we had these figures, it would be shown at a glance that the shipper in Central Iowa can send his produce to Liverpool for less than can the farmer five miles outside of Ottawa.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister has been good enough to lay on the Table a document headed ' Allan Line Service,' giving the time occupied by the steamers of that line making voyages to and from Canadian ports. I find a summary on page two, which shows that on the voyages westbound by steamer from Moville to Rimouski the average time was eight days, eight hours and forty minutes; and from Moville to Halifax, eight days, eighteen hours and nineteen minutes. Then, for the summer service, east-bound from Rimouski to Moville, the time was seven days, nineteen hours and two minutes; and the winter service from Halifax to Moville, eight days, one hour and twelve minutes. I wish to ask the hon. minister if he will have a compilation made showing the average speed ? Also I would like to aks if all the subsidies are paid to vessels of the Allan line ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They are the only ones which we have under contract at the present moment for that particular service. We have a contract of course, for other services, as I have mentioned-two or three distinct lines ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: It would be interesting if we could obtain from the hon. minister a statement of the average speed. Also, if the hon. minister would give us information as to what the weight of mails and newspapers carried by these vessels is. I suppose that could be easily ascertained?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I could give that when the main vote comes up. We have a main vote of Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).
$150,000. So, whatever is asked for now, I can get the information in time for the consideration of that vote.


Edward Frederick Clarke: May I ask the hon. minister if he has information as to the mails sent via New York ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I will have to apply to the Postmaster General's Department for that. The bulk of our mail, as the hon. gentleman knows, goes by New York.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That Is a lamentable fact.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: You see, we have one steamer per week, and they have a steamer, practically every day, and sometimes two. Also, of course, the rate of speed is very greatly against us.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Our vessels merely drift across the Atlantic between Moville and Halifax, the service is so slow.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am not in a position to contradict the hon. gentleman. Of course he knows that speed and price are co-relative terms in these cases. The amount we pay is not very large and the service we get is not very swift.
Mi'. CLARKE. I think I am within the mark in saying that the great bulk of Canadian mail is sent via New York because its gets to its destination two or three days sooner.


John William Bell: Will there be an opportunity to discuss the proposed fast line ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I am afraid not. It is now ten minutes past six


John William Bell: When the general estimates are brought up, will the minister be prepared to make a statement on the subject ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It will be within the hon. gentleman's (Mr. Bell) right to raise the question and have a discussion upon it. Of course, I could make a statement as to the result of the negotiations that are going on, but that is all that I could do.


Samuel Barker: I would like to ask the right hon. minister, in cases where he allows the larger subsidy, does he stipulate for a certain speed to be made by the vessels so subsidized ? In the long runs from Moville to Halifax, he had some of the fastest vessels, and they ran, apparently nine days, and yet


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: They did better than nine days. But I suppose the hon. gentleman is speaking of the average speed.


Samuel Barker: Is there a stipulation that the fast vessels shall make a minimum of speed ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The stipulation is that they shall average a certain speed taking one voyage with another.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the average demanded ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The average demanded is that they should make the trip from Moville to Rimouski and vice versa at an average of seven days, twelve hours, and from Moville to Halifax and vice versa at an average of eight days. These may be divided between summer and winter-seven and one-half days in one case and eight days in the other. From Halifax to Moville is somewhat shorter than from Rimouski to Moville.


Samuel Barker: When they do not make this speed is there any deduction from the subsidy ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Sometimes I may make a reduction. Of course, they plead-and sometimes, 1 suppose, fairly enough-that they are detained by fog or ice or similar causes, and. in a good many cases, they obtain a modification of the contract on that score. As a rule, during the last year, and, I think, during this year also, there has been a considerable improvement on what they formerly did, though I cannot pretend to say that the service is, or that it will be, a fast one.


Samuel Barker: Have there been any deductions on that account during the past year ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This year,. I have not examined the matter, Perhaps we may have to make some deductions, I fined them $10,000 last year for failing to comply with the contra ct.


Mr. HACKETT.: Before the item is adopted, I desire to ask the right hon. minister a few questions on a very important subject, and, as it is after six o'clock, I would not like to detain the hon. minister now.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: If my hon. friend (Mr. Hackett) will put the questions, I will answer him if I can.


Edward Hackett: Has the hon. minister arranged for communication between Prince Edward Island and Great Britain ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Yes, we are going to give a grant for the service between Prince Edward Island and Great Britain-the amount is in the estimates.


Edward Hackett: I am aware of that. But the season is pretty far advanced. Has tile right hon. gentleman arranged now for the service ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We did arrange for some trips for this year's service.


Edward Hackett: Commencing at what time S


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: We arranged for trips in the latter part of the year, in October, November and probably in December. I may say to the hon. gentleman that I will be able to give him detailed information upon that when that particular item comes up. That will be up in the course of the ordinary progress of the estimates in a few days, and if he will kindly wait until then I will give him the information.


Edward Hackett: The season is advancing.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: It was not neglected. We are endeavouring to obtain contracts tor the service.


Edward Hackett: Is that line running to Manchester or Liverpool ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Manchester.


Edward Hackett: I would desire to say to the right hon. gentleman that it does not suit Prince Edward Island so well as to have a line of boats running to Liverpool. It is true we are pleased to have it, but it does not suit the business of the island, because the connections of our business men are mostly in Liverpool.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: I will endeavour to meet the views of the business people as far as possible, but we have had a great deal of difficulty in getting any vessels to call there at all. We have had several negotiations, and they broke them .off altogether. We are obliged to take what vessels we can, but if it be found possible to secure vessels going to Liverpool I should be very glad if the merchants of the island prefer it to make that arrangement..
To provide for a weekly service from January 1 to June 30. 1903, between Halifax and Canso (revote). $2,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is merely a revote. There was a clerical error in voting it last year. The words ' semi-weekly ' were put in instead of 'weekly' and the Auditor General required another vote.
For services of the steamer ' Lord Strathcona' and wrecking plant on the St. Lawrence for the year ending June 30, 1903, $10,000.


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is a vote for the wrecking plant which is maintained at Quebec to go to the relief of any vessels that get into trouble on the St. Lawrence. The ' Lord Strathcona ' is a very large and powerful tug with the proper appurtenances for relieving vessels and it has been pretty successful in doing that work.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the government bear the expense in connection with a wrecking outfit ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The government make a $10,000 grant. This is a kind of a retaining fee to keep this tug always ready to go to the relief of any vessel in distress.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who owns her ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: The firm of Davie & Son, of Quebec, a firm well known in that business. The whole of the shipping interests of the St. Lawrence unanimously petitioned us to give this grant to that firm for the purpose of maintaining this wrecking plant.


Robert Laird Borden: Is this tlic usual vote or a new vote ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: Well, it is a little increased. It used to be $5,000. But they had a much inferior boat. They have put on the ' Lord Strathcona ' and we have increased the vote to $10,000.


Robert Laird Borden: Since when ?


The MINISTER OF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: This is for the service of the year 1902-3.	[DOT]


Robert Laird Borden: There is an increase this year.


The MINISTER QF TRADE AND COMMERCE.: There is an increase of $5,000. The service has been very useful. I think they succeeded in relieving four vessels that got into very considerable trouble in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
At six o'clock committtee took recess.
After Eecess.
House resumed at 8.20 p.m.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL.

The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. AY. S. Fielding).: I move that a sum of mouey not exceeding one-fifth the amount voted so far this session be granted to His Majesty for the public services for the year ending 30th of June, 1904.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume there is no reason why the committee should not adopt this motion providing the necessary moneys for carrying on the public business Sir RICHARD CARTWRIGHT.
of the country; but of course it will be understood that the passing of this resolution or of any Bill founded upon it will be absolutely without prejudice to the right of any member to move to strike out or reduce any one of the items which are comprised in this by way of schedule. In that respect it will be understood that every member of tiie House will be exactly in the same position as if this resolution were not passed, it being merely to prevent, I understand, detriment to the public service by reason of there being no funds available to pay the salaries.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I entirely agree with the views expressed by the ieader of the opposition. Of course as respects this particular one-fifth, as soon as the supply is granted, we have to spend some part of it. But all the hon. gentleman says will remain absolutely correct with regard to the four-fifths.


Robert Laird Borden: I would not care to be in this position, that because we have voted this one-fifth, in order that some portion of it might be expended on public works, for example, any gentleman on this side of the House should be precluded front the right of moving to strike out the whole item.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course in any particular case, after we have acted upon the Supply Bill to the extent of one-fifth, it would be too late to strike out the item in that case. But I hope no such case will arise. At all events, I quite agree with the hon. gentleman's >visli to have full freedom of discussion and of action in the matter, and that lie merely facilitates the passing of this resolution because it is necessary to make supply for the public service. I quite appreciate that, and in \ that spirit only is the matter agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.'	

*

[Stage Direction]
House again in Committee of Supply.
Post Office Department-outside service-salaries and allowances, $1,373,366.75.
Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman on Friday night gave us a list of increases, and among others was a number of increases in the city post offices. Do any of these increases relate to the post office in Halifax, and if so, what are they ? Perhaps also the hon. gentleman would give us some information respecting the increases in the salaries of letter-carriers ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir AVilliam Mulock).: There are four increases of second class clerks, $50 each; seven increases of $40 to third class clerks; six increases to salaries of letter-carriers. The names of the letter-carriers, and their salaries, increased by $30 each, are these :	De-

Young, $570; De Freytas, $540; Day, $510; Pheeney, $420; Beattie, $570; McDowell, $450.	'	-


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any provision for the increase of the salaries of Toronto letter-carriers ? The hon. minister promised the other night to bring down some information respecting the salaries paid to the letter-carriers, and the number -who had taken advantage of the provisions of his Bill.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The number of those who have come in under the new Bill is 195. They are distributed throughout the Dominion as follows : Halifax, 8; St. John, 20; Quebec, li\; Montreal, 45; Ottawa, 12; Kingston, 5; Toronto, 39; Hamilton, 15; London, 8; Winnipeg, 5; Vancouver, 10; Victoria, 5.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many of these letter-carriers have taken advantage of the Act of the hon. gentleman, and have come in under its provisions, who were before receiving the maximum salary of $600 ? The minister has made the statement that under this new Bill their position has been substantially improved. He has extended the time under which they may come in under its operation by six months. Now, can he tell us how many men who were in receipt of $600 a year, the maximum salary paid under the old law, have taken advantage of this new law ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Eight letter-carriers of the city of Toronto who are at their maximum have come in under the provisions of the present Act. They are as follows: T. A. Nuller, F. Kirke, M. Lawless. John Drew, R. Durston, J. S. Clarke, T. Humphries.


Edward Frederick Clarke: This is the total number from Toronto who have come in under the new law ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many throughout the Dominion ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Fifteen.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many letter-carriers throughout the Dominion are drawing the maximum of $600 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The staff would have to go through the civil list to prepare that statement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There can be no doubt that not more than fifteen letter-carriers in the Domiuion have taken advantage of these liberal provisions which the minister claims he has made for them..


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Will the minister supply at as early date as possible a memorandum showing how many have made application to take advantage of this provision and who are at the maximum of $600 a year ?
I The POSTMASTER GENERAL. I will get that information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The minister read a list of those who are to receive increases in the Halifax post office. To whom does he intend to give increases in the Toronto post office ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Three first class clerks will be increased $50 each; namely, Messrs. R. E. Chaad, W. E. Demon, R. Loudon; three second class clerks will receive increases ; H. Boulter, W. D. Milligan and J. Stoddart. There are twenty increases in the third class; do yon want the names ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: No.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In the fourth class there is provision for forty-nine who have been transferred from the ranks of stampers and sorters to the fourth class.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are these all the increases which are to be made in*the Toronto post offices ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In addition to these there are fourteen increases of $30 each in the salaries of the letter-carriers of the city of Toronto.


Arthur W. Puttee: How many of the Winnipeg letter-carriers applied to come in under the extra grade E ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The inspector will proceed to Winnipeg in the course of a few days and I have no doubt will report favourably in regard to the letter-carrier staff. We have no report yet.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Similar to the others, I suppose ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Bill is immensely to their advantage.


Arthur W. Puttee: In view of the statement of the. minister that the inspector is going to Winnipeg in a few days, I take this opportunity to draw the attention of the Postmaster General to the very serious complaints that are being made in Winnipeg and in the west generally with respect to the post office service. In the city of Winnipeg the way the post office business is being transacted amounts now to almost a public scandal. It is entirely inadequate and the only explanation we can offer is that the department at Ottawa does not appreciate the tremendous increase in the volume of business that is monthly taking place in the west. I understood the minister to say on Friday afternoon, that a sorting room was going to be provided when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company erect a new station, but that question has been hanging fire for two years and it looks now as if there will be no new station for another year. The congestion in the Win-

600S
nipeg post office is such that delay of that kind cannot be tolerated. They will simply have to put the mail matter into the lane instead of in the building. Some of the departments of the local post oflice are in a disgraceful condition. If the minister inquires he will find that there is no room in the dead letter oflice for the clerks to sit to do their work, and they have to sit on bags to do the sorting. The conditions are not sanitary there, and are positively injurious. Some plan must be found to properly man the post office. Not less than five left the service there at the end of last month. I was in the post office myself a short time ago, and I found that ini the registry department the work is being done by temporary employees who are classed as labourers. That does not look safe. If the men are fit for the service, their work ought be properly appreciated. I believe that two-thirds of the mail matter that goes through the Winnipeg office is sorted in the boxes. The letter carrier service has not met the requirements of the city and the'peopie have found it necessary to have boxes. There are six persons working at these boxes and only one of them has been in the employment of the department for a year. It is impossible for them to understand their work and the result is all kinds of misplaced mails. There are more complaints than there are officers to attend to them. It does seem that the service is growing worse and worse. With the great influx of population at the present time !t would look as if the service is going to break down altogether unless some radical improvement is made. I understand that there are often as many as 2,000 changes of address by temporary residents in Winnipeg in a month. There is no officer told off to attend to that work, so that this mail matter gets laid to one side and accumulates unassorted and undelivered. I know ns a matter of fact that the staff are working overtime, and the reason that it is not increased is the fear that the employees would resign in greater numbers than ever.
I wonder if the hon. Postmaster General knows the number of resignations that have taken place in the Winnipeg post office since the beginning of this year. I know that there have been so many that the work of tlie office is crippled, and I would like to know, and the citizens would like to know, whether any plan has been outlined for carrying on the business of the office and organizing the staff so that not only the present work, but the increased work which is bound to press upon the office from this lime forth, will be kept up.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Winnipeg post office building is wholly ininadequate to the requirements of the office and it will not be possible to put that office on a proper footing until additions are made to the building or some of the other gov-


Arthur W. Puttee: eminent staff are removed so that we can have additional accommodation in that building. The architect of the Public Works Department has already been at Winnipeg along with the chief superintendent of the post office, plans for the remodelling of the building have been prepared and approved of, and everything awaits the vote of parliament to give us money to proceed with the work. The staff of the Winnipeg post office, so far as its numbers go, is perfectly adequate. The city has made great progress of late, and the business of the office has outgrown the capacity of the building. The hon. gentleman has alluded to temporary employees. There is no temporary employee in the Winnipeg post office who is legally qualified for 'permanent appoint-) ment. There are not in that young country as many persons who have passed the civil service examination as are required from time to time, and consequently it is necessary to appoint persons temporarily until they can pass the examination and be legally appointed on the permanent staff. That is the only reason why so many temporary employees are in the Winnipeg post office at the present time. I do not say that the service is sufficient; quite the contrary. I am as well aware as my hon. friend is, that it is not sufficient, and I am as anxious as he is to make it sufficient. But it cannot be made sufficient in advance of the necessary accommodation being provided. The difficulty to-day arises from the great prosperity of Winnipeg, and the west, which has thrown a much greater population into the city, and has consequently increased the work of the post office. With reference to the money-order and registration branches, it is part of the plan of re-organization to transfer these to the upper part of the building, and that will be done as soon as the upper part of the building can be prepared to receive them. When those two branches are removed from the lower part of the building, more accommodation will be afforded for the general business of the office. But even all this is but a make-sliift, as I understand it, and the government will have to supply additional building accommodation at the city of Winnipeg at an early date.


Arthur W. Puttee: I am glad to see that the minister appreciates the situation. It is no worse than either he or I have explained to the House; it is simply very serious. But the question is, is it going to be remedied at once, or is it going to be allowed to get worse ? Because it seems to me that if some improvement is not effected more quickly than is usually the case with government departments, there will be soon a congestion in the office which it will be difficult to overcome. As regards the staff, it may be that there are persons there who are not qualified to be appointed permanently. The office is manned by persons em-

ployed temporarily, many of tliem being rated as labourers. For this some remedy should speedily be found. People who have gone In during last year have left because the salary has not been sufficient to induce them to remain. Five left during the past month, and at present there are but few competent employees, for want of experience. How does the lion. Postmaster General expect to remedy this state of affairs, and remedy it in time to be of some use ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There have been several experienced post office men sent from the east to Winnipeg post office within the last few weeks. The staff is to-day adequate for the work, but it cannot do its work properly until sufficient accommodation is supplied. The work will be done under great disadvantages until then. I have no doubt that in a short time parliament will be asked to provide for additional building accommodation, and the sooner we reach those estimates and get them passed the sooner the work will be undertaken.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Did I understand the hou. Postmaster General to say that the reason why there are so many temporary employees in the Winnipeg post office is because he could not And men who had passed the civil service examination? Is that right ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Might I ask the bon. minister if that same difficulty is experienced in Ontario and other provinces ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no trouble of that kind in other parts of Canada east of Winnipeg. It may be found to some slight extent in British Columbia, but there is not the same rapid increase of population there.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is there any insuperable difficulty in the way of having extra examinations by civil service commissioners ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Civil Service Act provides that the examinations shall be held only annually, I think in the month of November.


Albert Edward Kemp: Might I inquire of the lion. Postmaster General if his attention has been called to the fact that the cost of living is very much greater in Winnipeg than in eastern cities, and does he think he can get the work done in the Winnipeg post office at the same wages as are paid in the east ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, 1 do not.


Albert Edward Kemp: What does the bon. Postmaster General propose to do about it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are paid more in Winnipeg than in eastern cities.


Arthur W. Puttee: I might explain to the hon. member for Toronto (Mr. Kemp) that the employees in Winnipeg get $10 a month more than they do in the east; but even that is inadequate ; and the reason we have so few on the permanent list is that they will not stay in the office long enough to be appointed. Forty dollars a month is less than a man can live on. and they are constantly leaving. The better ones leave first, so that the inferior ones are left. To run the office properly, it is necessary to have efficient people, and you can only have them by paying as good salaries as are paid elsewhere. Those who have left have done so because the express companies and others are offering higher salaries than are paid in the post office.
Ten dollars a month does not more than cover the extra house rent in Winnipeg today in comparison with this city or any other eastern city. Ten dollars a month is not adequate, and the proof is they are leaving the postal service in spite of the inducement of permanent employment and gradual increase. The pay is too low at the start. Unless a man has been five years on the staff he will leave, and it is the best and most promising who are leaving first.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Apparently the Post Office Department is in some respects in as bad a position as the Militia Department. The hon. gentleman says that the position of the letter-carriers has been much improved under his new Bill. He has not however made that quite clear. If there has been any improvement, it is very extraordinary that only fifteen or sixteen have taken advantage of the new law.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know where the hon. gentleman got his information that only fifteen had availed themselves of the new law. I stated that 195 old employees had come under the new system. One hundred and ninety-five letter-carriers have elected to come under that system, and I have no doubt that when the Bill now before the Senate becomes law, a very much larger number will avail themselves of it. The time allowed to take advantage of the new system had expired. A good many of them had not time to fully appreciate the benefits and have since intimated their desire to come under the new law. To meet this desire, a clause has been inserted in the Bill, which passed this House and is now before the Senate, extending the time for admission. My hon. friend will then be able to judge whether these people appreciate the advantages of the new law or not. If my hon. friend desires to know how the matter stands, I will give him a few figures and he can judge for himself. The transfers from the old to the new sys-

tern were made at irregular dates. Tlie letter-carriers could come in whenever they liked within six months, and therefore I cannot give a tabulated statement running a clear year, but I can give you a number of figures which will explain the advantages of the new system. I have here a statement showing the effect of the change regarding a hundred and ninety-five letter-carriers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were they drawing the maximum salary ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Some of them were.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many-fifteen or sixteen '!


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think I said fifteen.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is all of those receiving the maximum salary who have taken advantage of the new law ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: These are some figures showing the actual salaries paid to certain letter-carriers and what they would have received under the old law.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Give us the dates of the appointments of those gentlemen ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Britnell, appointed 11th September, 1S99, would have received under the old law $435, and since his transfer he is receiving $4(14.50, and will be entitled to a bonus of $20, making an increase of $49.50 over what he would have received had he remained under the old system.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What about his superannuation ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not affected by the change. He is entitled to all the rights regarding superannuation.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the length of the holidays received under the old system and under the new ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is so curious that he will not allow me to give the information. I propose to answer the first question first and then will come to the others. The hon. gentleman evidently does not wish me to make good my statement that a certain number of letter-carriers, who had elected to come under the new system, were substantial gainers by the transfer.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. minister knows that he is only advancing his own friends.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman does not wish to have this information but probably the committee would desire it.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Delighted to have it.


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I shall proceed to give the information to the hon. gentleman and this committee.
Mr. Gay, appointed 9th April, 1900. gains $113 by the transfer. Mr. T. H. Reeves, appointed 13th July, 1901, gains $59.90 by the transfer. Mr. F. J. Cooney, appointed 1st January, 1900, gains $49.24. Mr. W. ,T. Livingstone appointed in 1898, gains $29. Mr. Coglilan, appointed in 1899. gains $95.24. Sir. P. J. Murphy, appointed in 1S89, gains $80.74. Mr. Finnigan, appointed in 1900, gains $90.74. Mr. W. S. SlcDonald, appointed in September, 1900, gains $46.05. Mr. D. Horneli, appointed 20tli April, 1896, he is not one of our appointees. He would have received, had he remained in the class in which he was, under the law of hon. gentlemen opposite, $497.42. He has elected to come under the Act of last session and lie is receiving $156.18 more than he would have received under the old law. Mr. T. M. Black, appointed in 1900, gains $113. In each of these cases the letter-carrier is entitled to the bonus of $20 and I am adding that to his profit.


Edward Frederick Clarke: You are adding it before they have received it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have explained to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) that at the end of each fiscal year a letter-carrier is entitled to $20 if his services have been satisfactory. That payment, therefore, cannot be made until the year's service ;s completed. The year's service, in the case of these people is now complete, and they are entitled to receive the bonus of $20, and, the government being good for it, we may assume that they have benefited to the extent of $20. Jlie remainder of the list is as follows :	T. A. Miller, 16th of December, 1S99, $82.02; F. Kirk, 14th of September, 1S82, $82.02; R. Louden, 29th of May, 1882, $62.02; J. Ryan, 13tli of January, 1897, $120.26; M. Lawless, 1st of July, 1886, $46.77; A. Fleming, 14th of May, 1894, $143.76 ; W. W. Leake, 30th of December, 1895, $114.76; ,T. McCaffrey, 19th of December, 1898, $101.58; F. J. Lomas, 17th of April. 1901. $48.05; S. J. Rich, 12th of July, 1900, $49.24; W. A. Hammond. 25th of April, 1900. $104.60; H. Blathwerwiclc, 23rd of April. 1900, $112.50; S. ,T. Kerwin, 2nd Of June, 1900, $112.50: W. J. Logan, 1st of January. 1900, $04.24: J. Quigley, 10th of May, 1901, $74.40; [DOT]T. H. Young, 4tli of February. 1898. $143.92; J. Drew, 19th of January, 1893, $87.25; R. Hurston. 22nd of March. 1882. $80.02: E. .T. Hand. 19th of December, 1898, $65.08; J. Taylor, 19th of December, 1899, $64.24; F. A. Kearns. 29tli of September, 1898. $23.08; [DOT]T. S. Clark. 15th of April, 1889, $40.77; H. McDonald. 26th of February, 1900, $113; A. Smith. 17th of February, 1900, $113 ; J. [DOT]Tnffrey, 11th of July, 1900, $49.40: T. Humphreys, 19th of November. 1891.	$84.08:
James Pott. 7th of December, 1899, $107.90;

W. Gilmour, 28th of December, 1899, $107.90.
These are all the letter-carriers attached to the Toronto post office. I have in another column full information as to the bounties in Montreal and other post offices. It makes a very lengthy statement, and the increases run about the same as those I have read. If the committee desire me to give the whole schedule I will do so. If the hon. gentleman (Mr, Clarke) is not satisfied I will read further.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I would be sorry to weary the hon. gentleman by asking him to read the whole list. But he has not established his statement as to the relative benefits under the old superannuation law and under his new law.
The PO^j. MASTER GENERAL. If the hon. gentleman wishes me to read the list,
I will do so.	,


Edward Frederick Clarke: If the hou. minister desires to read it, I will offer no objection. But I would prefer that the hon. gentleman would give us some information with regard to the relative position occupied by the men who have come in under his superannuation scheme and those under the old superannuation scheme. Let us know what advantage the men have under the new superannuation scheme.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will read a comparative statement


Edward Frederick Clarke: What we want to know is what the law was under which the appointment was made.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will go ou to give what the law was and how it worked compared with the present law. Under the old law ,'i letter-carrier entered the service at an initial salary of $300 per annum. But it will be interesting, if I explain how that figure was reached. There is a record of the hon. gentleman's party on this point. And, as I remarked on a former occasion there was a time when the hon. gentleman's criticism and interest might have been exercised with great advantage for the letter-carriers of the city of Toronto. But I am afraid lie' failed to voice that criticism, or else his' influence with liis friends was not so great ns we supposed it was.


Edward Frederick Clarke: We should not have to do anything now, if the Minister of Labour (Hon. Sir William Mulock). would do his duty.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He is doing his duty. The difficulty with uiy lion, friend (Mr. Clarke), and his real grievance, is that I have done my duty too well to suit him. When the first administration of Sir John A. Macdonald left ottiee it left the letter-carriers' salary at $360 on entering the service with an increase of $40 until a maximum of $600 was reached. When
the Mackenzie government came into office they-ehanged that law and raised the initial salary from $360 to $400. That administration went out of office in 1878, and the party of my hon. friend's (Ml. Clarke), now in opposition and now so anxious for the welfare of letter-carriers, came in. Within a couple of months after they had taken office, they reduced the salaries of the letter-carriers by $100 a year. Where was the hon. gentleman then ? Where was his sympathy then ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: How long ago was that?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What right had they to reduce it from $400 to $300 ? Does the hon. gentleman approve of that measure ? If he condemns it now where was he then ? They allowed the initial salary to remain at $300 for several years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many years ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Until they had to go to the country in 1882. Then just before going to the country they made some slight change.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What change did they make ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sorry to say that it was a change not altogether to the advantage of the letter-carriers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What was it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Instead of giving an annual increase of $40, they reduced the annual increase to $30. But in 1884, they raised the salary to $360 at entrance. Thus, they reduced the initial entrance salary of a letter carrier from $400 at which the Liberal party had left it in 1878 to $300, and left it at $300 till 1884, and then they raised it to $360 with an annual increase of $30, and kept it at that figure during the whole period of their being in office up to 1896.
I am not aware that the hon. gentleman during the whole of that period, either protested against this reduction or was known to raise his voice in favour of the betterment of the status of the letter-carriers of Toronto. When I have benefited the letter-carriers of Toronto and of the whole Dominion to a very material extent in the Bill that is now before the House, I have received the gratitude of the letter-carriers, notwithstanding any opinion of hon. gentlemen opposite. I know, Mr. Chairman, that the letter-carriers do not thank the hon. gentleman for his professions of friendship on their behalf at the present time. The hon.-gentleman is not in the slightest degree helping himself or helping his role as a friend of labour in trying to obstruct me in my efforts to better the status of the civil service in my department, as I am doing ; and instead of trying to misrepresent me



and unfairly criticising me, he should stand up in his place and, if he voices the sentiments of the working classes, he should candidly do his duty by voicing their gratitude on the floor of this House, and tell me that I have greatly benefited them. That would be his proper course, if he desired to represent those whom he professes to be so much concerned about, instead of obstructing, and misrepresenting, and detracting from what I have done. I would like to have the hon. gentleman explain why he allowed his party to lower the salary of the letter-carriers from $400 to $300, and why he allowed it to remain at $300 for six years; and why, if they were deserving of such great increases, he allowed them to remain under the injustice of being underpaid from 1878 until his party went out of office in 189G. I think the committee is entitled to know from him what he has been doing all these years, why he has not been using his influence and his powerful voice on behalf of the classes in whom he professes now to be so deeply interested.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am sure the minister must feel himself considerably relieved after the violent abuse he has vomited out on me, because I have stood up in the House and tried to secure for the letter-carriers a reasonable measure of justice and fair-play. The minister read us a list of those who are benefited by the Act which came into force last year, and I am in the sense of the committee in saying that three-fourths of those who have been benefited have been appointed since the hon. gentleman came into office. He professes to do justice to a deserving class of civil servants, the hardest worked and poorest paid, possibly, in any department of the civil service ; yet, when the facts come to be known, the hon. gentleman's sense of justice and fair-play prompts him to pass a measure through parliament which practically only benefits those who have been his own appointments since he became Postmaster General. That is about the size of the hon. gentleman's generosity. He claims that his legislation has been of great benefit to the letter-carriers. It has been of benefit in so far as it has shortened the time when a man coming into the service may receive the maximum of that class, from $600 to $626 a year. But that is all the benefit it has been. The minister knows all this just ns well as I do, and I am sure the committee will be surprised when I read a copy of a letter which was addressed to himself on the 20th of May last, stating the position of these very "letter-carriers, whose interests I am feebly attempting to present to this House. The minister knows that this is a copy of a letter addressed to him by a committee representing the letter-carriers of the country :
Honoured Sir.-Your favour of 6th instant with memorandum from your deputy regarding letter-carriers' salaries duly received and contents noted. In reply we ask you to consider Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
the following :	We submit that while the
amendment which was passed at the last session of parliament made the conditions for men entering the service better, that It made no provision

Mark these words, notwithstanding the deliberate statements made by the Postmaster General, this is the emphatic statement made by the men affected :
-it made no provision for those already in the service who had reached the maximum salary.
That has been my contention, and the hon. gentleman cannot dispute that fact.
We think you must admit that it would be unreasonable to ask men who were drawing the limit under the Civil Service Act to accept the terms of the amendment, which only granted $26 above what had been paid already, and no allowance made for sickness or accident.
The hon. gentleman gave that $26 with one hand, if they worked instead of taking their holidays, and at the same time he deprived them of their sick pay and their accident pay, which they received before.
As the work of letter-carrying necessitates a man being out in all kinds of weather, and as the average life of a letter-carrier is very short in consequence thereof, it is to be expected that sickness will overtake him, and we think that if such did come, through no fault of his own, that he should receive some consideration.
This hon. gentleman who has just told the committee what he is doing for the working people, and who charges me with being derelict in my duty in not raising my voice in their favour when he knows that I did not have a seat in the House nor an opportunity of doing so-this hon. gentleman, in his legislation, which his officers are trying to persuade the men in the various cities to take advantage of, is actually depriving them of their sick pay and their accident pay, and if he increases the salaries of those in class E from $600 to $626, he does that in lieu of ten days holidays which they formerly received.
We feel that it would be an easy matter to enact such le'gislation as would embrace every carrier throughout the Dominion, thus doing away with the feeling of dissatisfaction that prevails at present and which cannot be for the best interests of the service.
These statements are every one of them correct, they are susceptible of being proved to the hilt. I say it with all respect, there is a very wide divergence between the statement which the Postmaster General has just presented to the House and the statements I have read here, which emanated from the letter-carriers. He sat down without explaining to us what position the letter-carriers are in now in so far as superannuation is concerned. He will not tell us what the position of the letter-carriers was under the old Civil Service law under the old regime. I think myself that the letter-carriers were always scantily paid considering the important service which they render to the public. I think that a salary of $360

was a miserably small salary, especially when one or two per cent of it was taken for the purpose of establishing a superannuation fund. I ask him why it was that for three years after he assumed office he refused "to give to these men the miserable pittance of 830 or $40 a year annual increase ? Is that the way he was showing his touching regard for the working classes? Was that the record which he was establishing for himself that he might be appointed Minister of Labour for the Dominion of Canada, forsooth ? The hon. gentleman has been petitioned by the letter-carriers in almost every centre, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, for an increase of wages. It has been pointed out to him again and again by deputations which have waited upon him and in communications which have been sent to him that the cost of living has substantially increased in the cities where these men are employed, and that the struggle to make both ends meet is much keener than it was eighteen or twenty years ago. He has been petitioned again and again and it has been pointed out to him that it is a very difficult matter for men earning $600 a year to make both ends meet. When the Postmaster General, having these facts before him, gets up in this committee and states that he has improved the position of the men who were receiving the maximum under the old regime he makes a statement that he will find it very difficult to prove. I challenge him to make good that statement and to prove that the position of the men who were receiving the maximum salary under the old regime has been improved in any way by the amendment which he has made to the Post Office law'. He has made an amendment in regard to the conditions under which a man can attain to the maximum salary of a letter-carrier but the legislation which he_ has had passed applies only to men appointed since he came into office. When the hon. gentleman admits that only fifteen men in the entire Dominion receiving the maximum of the old class have taken advantage of the new legislation, I think he has given up the whole case. I ask the hon. gentleman to give us the facts now in regard to the position of the men under the old regime as far as superannuation is concerned, and to give us the facts as far as the men are concerned, appointed since the Civil Service Act was amended. If he will give us that information we will be able to make a comparison as to the position of the men under the old administration and under the new.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman asks me a number of questions and I am desirous of answering them all. If I have omitted anything I hope he will be good enough to remind me of the facts.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Give us the facts.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will allow me to have the floor, and even if my information is distasteful to him perhaps he will allow me to give it to him. I understand him to be desirous of knowing how those who were at the maximum, when they were transferred, have been treated and whether or not they have gained financially by electing to come from the old system to the new. There were fifteen men at the maximum when they were transferred. They are as follows
Name.	Salary when transferred.	Paid under new law,	Bonus$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.William McFarlane... .	600 00	704 25	20 0011. W. Baskerville, Hamil-	A. C. Blake. 	600 00	704 25	20 00
Running down the list I find that all the men whose names I will read under the old law only received $600 and that under this new law they received $704.25 annually and are entitled to $20, which they will receive at the close of the fiscal year, showing that each one has gained $124.25 under the new law more than he would have gained under the old law. One hundred and twenty-four dollars added is an increase of twenty per cent on $600. The men know the difference between $724 that they get under the Liberal administration and the $600 that they got under the former administration. They quite understand that and more of them are anxious to come in under it. The hon. member for West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) forgets that already there has been a Bill passed through this House to greatly improve the status of the letter-carriers. I stated when the Bill was going through, and I state again that the provisions of the Bill which has passed this House increasing the salary of the letter-carriers apply to every letter-carrier in Canada, no matter when he was ail-pointed, and I am at a loss to understand what the hon. gentleman means when he says that that measure only applies to the letter-carriers appointed by the Liberal administration. The Bill passed last session was open to every letter-carrier in the service. No matter when he was appointed he was eligible to come in under it if he chose. It was optional with him, and I may say that 195 letter-carriers have availed themselves of the privilege, and of the 195 letter-carriers 71 were appointed by the administration prior to the present govern-



ment took office. What does the hon. gentleman mean by saying that there were only 15 that have had any benefits conferred' upon them under the provisions of the present Bill which has received the sanction of this House. I did not -receive any assistance from the hon. gentleman in securing its passage. On the other hand, I received some unfriendly criticism such as I am receiving to-night, and the letter-carriers will understand the difference between the substantial advantages I am giving them and the hollow pretentions they have received from the hon. gentleman. Under the Bill which has passed this House this session I have practically arranged for an increase of $78 to *every letter-carrier in Canada and if every letter-carrier chooses to come under this new law as he may, and by good conduct reach the maximum of $2.25 a day, he will be eligible to receive in all, in cash, $724 a year. In addition to that he has some perquisites. He is given uniforms annually worth $40 or $50, he is given two weeks clear leave of absence with full pay, he has considerations extended to him on certain holidays and his period of service per day does not exceed eight hours. Now, I say to this House, and I say it generally, that the status of the letter-carrier in Canada under this new Bill now before the Senate is a reasonable compensation and will secure to him as high pay as is earned by the average wage earner of this country. If the hon. gentleman himself is an employer of men I will ask him if his employees fare any better at his hands than the letter-carriers whose case is under the consideration of the committee. Perhaps the hon. gentleman could give me that information.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will ask the hon. gentleman as to the payment he gives his employees first.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I try to treat them well.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Perhaps he could give ns a list of the salaries he pays to his own help.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman still desires-


Edward Frederick Clarke: We want an answer about the superannuation fund.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What is the hon. gentleman's question ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to know what position the men who were appointed by the hon. gentleman occupy in regard to superannuation and what was the position of the men under the old regime in regard to superannuation.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I speak on this point subject to correction, but I think the first Superannuation Act in Canada was passed by the Mackenzie regime.


William Mulock: It underwent certain changes and it continued in force until 1897 or 1898. Another law is taking its place. It was repealed generally as to new appointees, but it applies to old appointees, and those whom my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke) seems to be specially solicitous for are therefore entitled to the benefits of the Superannuation Act. The hon. gentleman has been in the House since the present law was passed and he supported it. Under that law a man contributes to the fund from his salary, and he is allowed 4 per cent on his contributions. If he retires from the service he gets his money which) he has paid in with interest, and if he dies his family get the money that had accumulated. Under the former Superannuation Act the letter-carrier contributed to the superannuation fund, and no matter how many years he contributed, if he died in the service his family got nothing whatever.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When a man retired under the old law after a service of twenty or twenty-five years he received an annuity of a dollar a month for each year of service. How many men were drawing that superannuation allowance when the hon. Postmaster General took office ? The Postmaster General is attempting to draw a comparison between the condition of the letter-carriers under this Bill and their condition under the old law, which comparison is very misleading to say the least. Under the old Act they had their superannuation as stated. That Superannuation Act has been practically done away with, and what he gives to the men now is the accumulation of what he deducts from their salaries and interest added. The fact remains and it is incontrovertible, that the men themselves who know whether they are to be benefited or not, have not as a rule taken advantage of the broad liberal measure which the Postmaster General says he has enacted on their behalf. The best possible evidence that the men are not satisfied with his legislation, and believe it is of no substantial benefit to them, is the fact that only fifteen in the whole Dominion have availed of its provisions. Under the old system a man entered at $360, and he was increased by $30 or $40 a year till he reached the maximum of $600. Under the old system the men were paid during sickness, they got three weeks holidays and they got superannuation when they retired from the service. Under the new system they commence with $1.25 a day, and in four of five years they reach $2, or if they have been placed in grade E afterwards they receive $2.25, but their holidays have been cut down, they receive no pay when they are sick, and when they retire or are dismissed from the service they only get their own contributions into the fund. I want to tell the Postmaster General that those men who came to him again and again would have gladly accepted any reasonable measure of relief, and the fact

that they have not accepted the legislation which he has .given them is the strongest possible proof that it is of no substantial benefit to them. The hon. gentleman's officials have gone amongst the men and have tried to point out to them the advantages of the new Act as forcibly as they could, but only eight In the Toronto division have taken advantage of it, and only seven others throughout the whole Dominion. These are the strongest proofs that the position of the men who were receiving the maximum salary under the old regime has not been improved by the legislation which the Postmaster General has passed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Much as I would like to satisfy the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) I am afraid I cannot, but there is a class who will be satisfied and that is the class I am chiefly solicitous for. I refer to those who are going to be benefited by this legislation. I can tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) that he will have very little argument to support his statement when the Bill now before the Senate becomes law. He will receive his rebuke from the letter-carriers themselves, because I believe that they will in overwhelming numbers avail themselves of the benefits of this Bill. The law of 1881 was continued during the whole of the Conservative regime and although the hon. gentleman tells us that he had no seat in parliament to protest against it, yet he has always been a power in his party and if he spoke he would have been listened to. 1 will give the hon. gentleman some figures which will compare the position of the letter-carriers under the present measure with their condition under the old law. Under the old law suppose a letter-carrier entered the service, after they raised the salary to $300, he would have taken nine years to reach the maximum of $600. Under the present Bill, and including those in grade E under the Bill of last session, suppose a letter-carrier entered the service and remained for nine years he would receive in all $5,358, as against $4,520 which he would have received under the law put in operation by the Conservative government. He would have over $1,000 more during the nine years andi a fraction under the present law than he would have under the old law, and yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clarke) says that this new law has not bettered the letter-carriers. I will leave the conclusion to the letter-carriers themselves, and I think the hon. gentleman will find that next session a great many of the letter-carriers whose case he is pretending to espouse, will have repudiated him by accepting the benefits of this Act. I will admit that there are a few letter-carriers in the Toronto post office who will not come in under this law. There are a few who are known to be dissatisfied and who could not be satisfied; they do not propose to be satisfied; and these are the | 1894
gentlemen who probably are extending some of their spirit to the hon. gentlemen opposite. But the great majority of the letter-carriers are desirous of this betterment, not only in Toronto but throughout the Dominion, and will accept it gratefully. I do not know what the hon. gentleman means by saying that officers of my department have been going among the letter-carriers trying to persuade them to make the transfer. For six months past it has not been possible for them to transfer, because the time during which they could avail themselves of the privilege expired, I think, last December. Since then there has been no legal authority for a letter carrier to transfer himself to the new system, and therefore it is rubbish to say that any superior officers have been endeavouring to persuade them to do what it was not legally possibly for them to do. The hon. gentleman asks why I am extending this system ? Because many of the men have asked me to do so. Probably some bad advisers have got amongst them and persuaded some of them to reihain in a discontented state; but they are learning better; they are learning who their true friends are; and the hon. gentleman may find in another year that he has few friends among the letter-carriers of Toronto.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I am perfectly satisfied to stand all the contumely and abuse which the hon. gentleman heaps on me, because if X sit in this House in another year and he is also here, unless I am grossly deceived, I am satisfied, notwithstanding all the persuasive eloquence of the hon. gentleman and all the inducements his officers hold out to the letter-carriers to come under this Act, the great majority of them will refuse to do so, because they know and believe that their positions would be in no way improved, but rather the reverse, if they took advantage of this legislation, which is offered to them as a substitute for the increases which they were promised two or three years ago.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What promise was made ? Who promised ? I would like the hon. gentleman to make good that statement.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I will make it good. When was the hon. gentleman in Australia ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In 1901.


Mr. HEYD.: It is not a desirable thing that the people of Canada should be under the impression that the men who are discharging the arduous duties of letter-carriers are being under paid ; and therefore it would be just as well to revert to the positions these men now occupy in order to get at the facts of the case. Under the old law it would take nine years for a man to get the maximum salary of $600. The first year he would get $360. Under the present law be gets $469. or an increase of $109 a I year. After one year's service under the old

law he got $390 ; under the present law he gets $469, or an increase of $79. In the third year he gets an increase of $127, in the fourth year an increase of $97, in the fifth year an increase of $146, and in the sixth year an increase of $116 per year. My hon. friend opposite (Mr. Clarke) who has just spoken said that the men who were employed previous to the advent of the present government do not derive any benefit from the present law. Now, all the letter-carriers appointed previous to 1896, who were six years in the service, got an increase from $510 to $626 a year, or an increase of $116. .Men who were seven years in the service got an increase of $80 a year. Those who were eight years in the service got an increase of $56, and those who were nine years in the service got an increase of $26 a year, or a salary of $626 a year ; and I figure that the actual benefit of a letter-carrier who served nine years in the service under the new rate amounts to an increase of $1,000. Although he does not stand quite so well in respect to super-annnuation, a man whose wages have been increased to $1,000 in nine years has a fund in reserve much larger than he could hope to receive from the superannuation fund. The only important question to consider here is whether a man getting $626 a year is well paid for his services. We must take into consideration the character and quality of the men who carry on the business of letter-carriers. I do not want to say a word against the characters of the men ; but the qualification necessary to a successful letter-carrier are simply physical strength and the ability to read the address on a letter. That class of men are not scarce. In the ordinary avocations of life they would regard themselves as receiving a princely salary were they getting $626 a year, especially when we consider that the time they labour amounts to a little over eight hours per day. Now, I am quite satisfied that there is not an employer of labour in this House who is paying labouring men more than $2 per day. The position of a letter-carrier is such that when a vacancy occurs a hundred men are after it. They are willing to leave their jobs as moulders, machinists, brick-layers, carpenters or any of the ordinary avocations of life. They are willing to drop the trowel at once and become letter-carriers at $626, a year, with two weeks holidays, two suits of clothes, and shoes, amounting to $40 a year more. I asked a motorman to-day what wages he was getting. He said $1.65 for ten hours labour. The letter-carriers get $2 a day and work two hours a day less, and do work requiring no higher degree of intelligence than the motorman. Considering this service fairly, I think that a letter-carrier who is getting $2 a day is getting as much money as he could hope to obtain in any other walk of life requiring no greater degree of intelligence and training. He dees Mr. HEYD.
not require to put in five or six years as an apprentice. He starts out at once at a good salary, which increases each year until in four years he gets $626 a year, his clothing and his boots, so long as he behaves himself and is able to discharge his duties. I am, of course, in touch with the letter-carriers, because since I have represented South Brant, we have established the free delivery system in the city of Brantford, and I know how anxious men are to get the position of letter-carrier. They are willing to go to any extreme to obtain it. I have had over eighty applications for six places. It is not a good thing to instil into the minds of our working classes the idea that a letter-carrier who is getting $626 a year is not well paid. It is a little discouraging to the men in the factories who are working ten hours at the most arduous toil for $1.50 a day. If we consider the circumstances fairly and dispassionately, I think we shall come to the conclusion that these men are well paid. There are none who have a right to complain unless those who are getting $626 a year, and we have a right to ask ourselves, is their complaint well founded V Is $026 a year not enough ? What employer of labour in this House to-day can say that he is paying men over $2 a day who do not require any more training or education than the letter-carriers V I have very grave doubts that any man in this House, who is an employer of labour of that class, is paying the wages paid by Canada to-day. I am glad that Canada is setting a good example to the employers of labour. I believe that the class who labour with their hands are entitled to be well paid, but I believe that $2 per day is fair pay for a letter-carrier.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. Postmaster General challenges the accuracy of the statement I made respecting a promise given these letter-carriers, some two or three years ago, of an increase in their salaries. If the hon. gentleman will take the 2nd Vol. of ' Hansard,' 1901, p. 5793, he will find the following record of the promise to which I have referred :


Mr. BIRKETT.: Yesterday I placed a resolution on the Order paper, asking the attention of the acting Postmaster General _ to the increase of salaries which, he admitted, he intended giving the letter-carriers. I was one of the deputation, that waited on the hon. the Postmaster General a day or two before he left, and he assured the deputation that the gentleman he wias leaving in charge of his department would see that the matter was carried through. Several deputations have since waited on the acting minister, and I think it would be a gracious act on his part to carry out the promise made by the Postmaster General. The letter-carriers are a very deserving class of men and certainly have presented a case that is well worthy of consideration*


Robert Franklin Sutherland: My hon. colleague, the Postmaster General, had taken the matter into consideration before he left, and had practically devised a scheme by which these men

would be given an increase. I had two or three deputations ot the letter-carriers wait on me. There was some difference of opinion as to the best plan to be adopted, and after full consideration I concluded it was best to allow it to stand over until next session. I think that the letter-carriers themselves were pretty well satisfied also to have the question remain over. While I am not in a position to say what will be done, I can assure my hon. friend that the Postmaster General and the government are favourable to an increase, and that a plan will be adopted which will, I trust, meet, the views of the letter-carriers and the House generally.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I understand, from what the acting Postmaster General has said, that a plan had been drafted and that that plan had been submitted to the carriers themselves, who waited on the acting minister, and that the reason it was not put into effect is because there was difference of opinion among the letter-carriers as to the best method of carrying it into effect. Is that correct ?


Robert Franklin Sutherland: Not quite. We discussed different plans, and after full consideration it was thought better to leave the matter stand over until next session. It was' late in the session and there was a great deal to do. And I think that the letter-carriers themselves were satisfied that it would be in their interest to let the matter stand until next session.
I think that is pretty strong evidence that a pledge was given the letter-carriers by the gentleman who was acting for the Postmaster General, which pledge was no doubt made with his approval. That is the justification I had for making the statement I did.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman has read from ' Hansard ' some observations made in the discussion arising out of a question put by the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Birkett). It is true that a deputation waited upon me in the department in the spring of 1901. A number of members were present, including my hon. colleague the Finance Minister, and, if my memory does not deceive me, my hon. friend the leader of the opposition was there also. I was leaving for Australia the next day, and after hearing all that could be advanced, I said that various plans were under consideration, that I had not matured anything definite, but that if I did before I left, I would give the benefit of my views to my hon. colleague the Minister of Finance, who was going to look after the Post Office Department in my absence. I gave him the benefit of my views, but after consideration I wrote him that I thought it would be better to let the matter stand until another year. Accordingly it was allowed to stand until last year, when the government did introduce a measure which has met with the approval of 195 letter-carriers and will doubtless meet with the approval of the very large majority ; and in addition there is another measure before this parliament, which will give them a further increase of $TS a year, or about 12 per cent. All who choose may take advantages of these very substantial advances, but no' definite plan was ever announced to any one and nothing definite promised. The first time any definite promise was made was when I introduced a Bill last session, which has been supplemented by another Bill this session.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does the hon. gentleman think that this is not a promise :	' While
I am not in a position to say what will be done, I can assure my hon. friend the Postmaster General and the government are favourable to an increase.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, and they got it.


Samuel Hughes: I would suggest to the hon. the Postmaster General that if there were locked boxes in the post office in this building, they would be an improvement on the present system.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The
post office in the House of Commons is under the control of the Committee on Internal Economy.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Are many men paid by the department who drive wagons and collect the letters out of the letter-boxes ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The
collection by those wagons is done under contract.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who are the men who are driving the wagons and emptying the boxes ? Are they officials of the Post Office Department ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are sworn officers of the department. They are not paid directly by the department.


Edward Frederick Clarke: They wear a uniform ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, we require them to wear a uniform, but they are paid by the contractors. They are not officers of the department directly, but indirectly.	[DOT]


Samuel Hughes: With regard to salaries paid the mail-clerks, some receive salaries with mileage. I see one man named Sloan, a second-class clerk, received only 52.16 mileage. Can the hon. gentleman explain that ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Mr. Sloan, who is a railway mail clerk, met with an accident. Since then he has not been able to be on the road. This is simply a small balance, I suppose,-owing to him up to the time of the accident. We put him into some light work inside.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. Postmaster General, some years ago, made some arrangement about promoting clerks. A clerk temporarily in the service and desiring a permanent appointment, would have to accept a reduced salary for a time. There

were a number of clerks In 1896, when the Postmaster General came into office, who were temporarily appointed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Appointed under my administration ?


Samuel Hughes: No ; the hon. minister took good care that his own friends were appointed permanently. They were clerks who were employed in the temporary service when the hon. gentleman came into office. Are any of these still temporary clerks ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am informed that at the time this government took office there were a number of temporary employees, railway mail clerks. Under the law, as it was then, if they had been made permanent they would have had to begin at the initial salary of their class. But the law was changed in 1898, and we made them all permanent, giving them the salary they were receiving at the time of their permanent appointment.


Mr. BELCOURT.: I believe I can say, speaking for a number of my constituents, that the substantial measure of justice that has been given to the letter-carriers and railway mail clerks and other employees of the outside service has been received with a great deal of gratitude on their part. And, no doubt, if an opportunity is afforded, as I hope it will be, they will strongly express their gratitude. While discussing the matter of increases for the mail clerks, the letter-carriers and the outside service of the Post Office Department, I wish to submit to the committee reasons which will be applicable to the Post Office Department, and also to the civil service generally. I crave your permission, Mr. Chairman, 'to lay before the committee certain figures and statements in connection with the civil service generally which. I think, ought to receive the close attention of the members of this committee. I want to submit to you that the time has come when the salaries of the civil service ought to be increased all round. It seems to me that, owing to the great changes which have taken place in Canada, particularly within the last few years, the time has come when, for the reasons which I shall have the honour to mention, the salaries of the civil service generally ought to be increased. If one examines the work now being done in the various departments, one is struck at once with the fact that the civil servants of to-day are performing a great deal more work and giving a great deal more of their time to the country than they did formerly. There has been a very substantial increase in the quantity of their duties and a change in the nature and extent of those duties. There has been also, as every one knows, a very great increase in the cost of living. I do not know that this increase has been greater in the city that I represent than in any other city in Canada, but


Samuel Hughes: I am able to say that it has in larger ratio than in a great many other cities. We have to pay more for rent, wages, fuel, municipal rates, food, clothing-in fact, all the commodities, all the comestibles, have largely increased all over the country, and particular}* in the cities. The cost of living to-day, I think, may be said to have increased 35 or 40 per cent over what it was twenty-five or thirty years ago. The wage-earners all over the world are demanding and receiving to-day a much larger wage than they received a few years ago. Mechanics are better paid, farmers get a better return for their labour, the professions receive larger fees, teachers, professors and, I believe, clergymen also, are in receipt of much larger- stipends than even a few years ago. These matters are all decided by comparison. If one looks at what has taken place in the banks, the railway companies, the insurance companies,' and all the great corporations which do the financial, commercial and industrial work of the community, he finds that the salaries of the principal officers and of all their employees from top to bottom have been very largely increased within the last few years. I wish also to give yon some figures which will show how much the increase of salaries is justified, how much, in fact, it is demanded, by the place that Canada now occupies and the attention she is receiving from the 'world at large, in order to make the stipends paid to our state officials commensurate with the dignity of the nation. I take the year 1S73 as a basis of comparison, because that is the time when the rate of salaries in the civil service was fixed ; and it is well to remember that in the thirty years since then there has been no increase in the salaries of the civil service, while every other occupation in Canada has expected and has received a return for its labour increased, in some cases by 50 or 75, or even 100 per cent. In 1873 the total revenue of Canada was $20,000,000: in 1902-and probably it is more in 1903-it was $60,000,000. In 1873 we had 5,000 miles of railway ; to-day the country has 20.000 miles of railway. In 1873, in the Post Offic Department, now presided over by the hon. member for North York (Hon. Sir William Mulock), there were
34.000.	000 letters carried ; in 1902 there were
214.000.	000 letters carried.
Now if we take the heads of the civil service we find that they were receiving more in 1873 than they are now. They are receiving, the most of them $3,200, some of them, I believe, receive $3,500. and one something over $4,000, the deputy Minister of Railways and Canals. Now these deputy heads of departments have a very much greater responsibility: owing to the circumstances I have mentioned and to many other reasons, their duties have much increased, both in kind, in quantity and importance. They are brought before the public, not only in our own country, but in other countries,

in the discharge of their official duties. They have been sent abroad on many occasions to represent the government of Canada, and in fact have great responsibilities cast upon them. They are all the year round responsible for carrying out the policy of the ministers under whom they serve. I say therefore that because of their duties having been so much increased these gentlemen should receive consideration at the hands of this parliament and receive an increase of salary. As I said before, their salaries in 1873 were practically what they are today, I say practically, because in one or two, perhaps three instances, the salaries of the deputy heads, instead of being increased in the last thirty years, have been decreased. The Deputy Minister of Public Works in 1870 was in receipt of a salary of $3,500, to-day he is only entitled to $3,200; he cannot get anything beyond that. In 1882, the salaries of three or four deputy ministers were $3,000; they received $3,200 as deputy ministers and an additional sum of $400 as members of the board of civil service commissioners. In 1903, the average salary of the deputy ministers is $3,200. Now if we take the secretaries of departments, what do we find ? I ask my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Clarke) to note this. He was complaining that the salaries' of some of the officials have been decreased by this government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: When ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I thought the hon. gentleman said that the Postmaster General had not improved the condition of the letter-carriers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is a different thing from what the hon. gentleman has just stated.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: It is on the same subject. My argument is not now referring to the letter-carriers, but to another class of the civil service.


Edward Frederick Clarke: The hon. gentleman must not put words in my mouth that I did not use.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If I misunderstood the hon. gentleman I am willing to drop that argument. But am I wrong in understanding that the hon. gentleman said that the Postmaster General had not treated the letter-carriers with the same liberality as they were treated by the former government ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: Probably the hon. gentleman, being a lawyer, knows how to twist words. He is trying to convey the impression that I said that some of these officials were worse off than they were some years ago. I made no such statement.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: If the hon. gentleman did not mean that


Edward Frederick Clarke: I never said it, and nothing that would give the hon. gentleman cause for suggesting it.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Well, did my hou. friend go so far as to say that the Postmaster General has not improved the condition of the letter-carriers in the outside service of the department ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: I make the statement that the letter-carriers who were receiving the maximum of the third class when the hon. gentleman came in, $600, have not been benefited by his legislation. That is their opinion as well as mine.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: My hon. friend is not a lawyer, but he can twist a statement much better than many lawyers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I suppose I ought to feel proud at the compliment paid me by a gentleman of the ability of the hon. member for Ottawa. Did I hear the hon. gentleman aecurately in understanding him to say that the cost of living has increased during the past twenty-five years by 35 per cent ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I said that in the last thirty years the cost of living in cities had increased 30 per cent, 35 per cent, and in some cases, 40 per cent. But whether my hon. friend made the statement I credited him with or not, the figures are there to prove that the want of liberality has been the other way. In 1882 the secretaries of departments were receiving $2,800. The secretary had an assistant who was in receipt of $2,000. To-day the maximum salary to which the secretary can aspire is $2,400; whilst in 1878, when the political friends of the hon. member came into power and for a few years thereafter, they were receiving $2,800, that is, $400 more. I cannot exactly remember the date, but I think that Was changed in 1889 or 1900, by the Conservative government, when $400 was taken away from the secretary of the department and the post of assistant secretary was abolished. The secretary is now replaced by a chief clerk whose salary is $1,850. That was the work of a government which the hon. gentleman supported. Then the accountant of the department in those days was receiving $2,800, and had a cashier at $2,200, and an assistant accountant' at '$2,200. To-day the maximum of the accountant is $2,400, as against $2,200. Both the cashier and the assistant accountant have been abolished and replaced by clerks' whose salary only reaches $1,800. The accountant to-day is only in receipt of $2,000. The chief superintendent of the savings bank received, in 1882, $2,700, and the assistant was paid $1,775. The highest the superintendent can new attain is $2,400, with no assistant. The salary of the present superintendent is about $1,900, $800 less than in 1882. Certainly some of the figures show that the Liberals have been more generous than their predecessors in the treatment of the officials. Again I repeat that these are relative questions which are decided by means of comparisons, and I think it is by

looking at tlie figures in tlie various departments that \re can arrive at a correct judgment as to whether the civil servants today are iu receipt of the salaries to whicn they are entitled by reason of their services and by reason of the conditions which I have described. Take the Tost Office Department. We find that in 1896, the year in which there was a change of government, there were employed in the Post Office Department 254 clerks, of whom 19S were permanent and fifty-six temporary. The revenue in that year was $4,005,890. In 1902, with a revenue of $5,128,118, there were 279 employed in the Post Office Department of whom 208 were permanent and seventy-one temporary. It will be seen at once that with a revenue of $1,250,000 less than what it is now there were only twenty-five employees less in the Post Office Department, or to put it the other way, with a revenue of $4,000,000, we had 254 clerks while with a revenue of $5,250,000, we have 279 clerks, or an increase of only twenty-five in six years.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Wbat does that prove ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That proves that the civil service to-day are doing much more work than they were doiug during the period of the former government.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Does that apply to letter-carriers ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: No, I did not pretend to say that it did. I am speaking of the civil service generally. I am not dealing with the letter-carriers. I thought my hon. friend had enough of the letter-carriers.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I thought it would include them. I thought the hon. gentleman was harping back to them.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: Since 1896 the Post office Department has established a branch known as the postal note branch and to man that fifteen clerks were taken from the departmental staff. Since then five clerks were added to the staff of the branch. The point which I have been endeavouring to make and which must be plain to my hon. friend (Mr. Clarke), who generally follows a discussion with such keen interest as not to miss the point, is that we have now only twenty-five employees more in the Post Office Department, while one-fifth more work is being done. I am not dealing with letter-carriers, but with the post office inside service. If we look outside of Canada at the other British colonies, and I think this is a fair test to apply in matters of this kind, what do we find ? We find in three of the British colonies the figures of which I have looked at, the following results :	In New South Wales, with a
population of 1,356,000, the deputy heads have an average salary of $4,800 each ; in Victoria, with a population of 1,163.000, the deputy heads have a salary of $4,252, and


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: in Cape Colony, with a population of 1,-
527,000,	the deputv heads have a salary of $4,742, whilst in Canada, with a population of 6,000,000, the average salary of a deputy minister is $3,200.


Samuel Hughes: Why does the government not increase the salary ?


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: That is what I want them to do. I submit the time has come, when, notwithstanding the fact that a number of people throughout the community believe that the civil servants are already well enough paid, we must really consider the matter. We must remember what I said before, that this rate of salary has not been touched for thirty years. While speaking of the civil servants, I want to refer also to a matter which has very often worried me not only here, but abroad. For instance, when in England or in France or United States, I was asked the question what the salary of our Prime Minister was and what the salaries of our other ministers were and what the salaries of our judges were, I confess I felt a deal of shame when I had to admit that the Prime Minister of Canada was paid the paltry sum of $8,000, that the salaries of the other ministers were $7,000, and that the salaries of our judges were $5,000. There is not one single British colony which pays its officers as little as we pay. I had hoped the time would come when parliament, for the sake of its dignity, for the sake of Canada, and for the sake of the place it occupies in the eyes of the world, would have thought it proper of its own motion to have increased the salary of the Prime Minister of the country to such a substantial sum as would not cause shame to any of us when asked what the salary of the Prime Minister was. I think these remarks apply not only to the Prime Minister, but to the other ministers also. They apply to the judges and I hope also, when the House considers this question, it will consider the propriety of affording the leader of the opposition, who sacrifices his time, his profession and his dearest interests, some recognition of the claims which he has upon the country. I say the time has come when, because of the changed conditions in the country, because of the greater duties which the civil servants have to perform, because of the increased cost of living, because of the greater demands in money matters which are made upon them and in the face of the great prosperity which exists, in face of the higher salaries which are being paid to managers and the employees of the greater corporations, we must meet the question fairly and squarely and afford our civil servants and the servants of the state a remuneration which is commensurate with their services, commensurate with their requirements and commensurate with the dignity, honour and position which Canada now occupies in the eyes of the world.


Mr. CLANCY.: I am sure the committee will be somewhat gratified at the admirable election speech which the bon. gentleman has just made. It is quite easy to see that we now seem to be on the brink of a general election. That bon. gentleman has been moved to tears almost over the civil servants in Ottawa.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I have almost every session, since I have been in this House, on some occasion or other when there was not an election in sight, said something on behalf of my constituents, including the members of the civil service.


James Clancy: As occasion arose evening after evening in this House when the government were endeavouring to make a name for themselves by depriving those gentlemen who were the hon. gentlemen's constituents of their statutory increases, I heard no strong appeals from him.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: The hon. gentleman could not have been in the House then, because I did appeal on two or three occasions.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman says he did appeal on two or three occasions out of several thousands that have liap-jiened since I have had the honour of being a member of this House. Does not the hon-. gentleman think it would be a little more becoming on his part first to advocate the payment by the government of the back salary due to these civil servants and to letter-carriers as my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Clarke) suggests ? I venture to say *that if there was a vote of condemnation proposed in this House against the government for having unfairly retained the pay of civil servants, the government would be perfectly sure of the hon. gentleman's support. The voice of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) should have been heard long ago in this House demanding that justice be done to the civil servants by having the back pay that is due them returned. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) advocates an increase in the salaries of the ministers and the judges. It is currently reported that the hon. gentleman is a candidate for both positions.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: I deny that.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman is not particular whether the minister's salaries or the judges' salaries are increased, because he expects to be either one or the other, and in the meantime if his hopes are shattered he expects to make himself safe with the voters of Ottawa by advocating an increase in the pay of civil servants. But the Postmaster General was either asleep or intently reading while the member for Ottawa was speaking, and so the Postmaster General was entirely oblivious to his appeals. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) remarked that many people in Canada thought that the civil servants were well enough paid, if not
overpaid. Let me tell the hon. gentleman (Mr. Belcourt) that his political friends made it a campaign cry against the Conservative party that the members of the civil service were overpaid and under worked, and if the impression which he speaks of, prevails in the country then it is due to the efforts of his party friends that that impression prevails. I do not know whether the deputy heads receive too much or too little, but, I say that any official that has not the maximum of his class is entitled by law and contract to get his annual increase, and it is nothing to the credit of the government that these increases have been stopped. Let me appeal to the Postmaster General on behalf of the rural postmasters of this country who are undoubtedly underpaid. It may be that he can get others to discharge the service for the same pay, and it may be that under our system we cannot give them full and fair remuneration, but he certainly should make some effort to place their pay on a fairly reasonable basis. I wish to ask the Postmaster General if it is his intention at the present session to make increases all around in the pay of the country postmasters.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The postmasters are being paid to-day according to the same scale that was in force when we took office. If it should be decided at any time to alter that scale they will at once be notified. I stated in committee on Friday night-and I assume my hon. friend was not present-that legislation is not necessary to increase the salaries of postmasters other than those postmasters who are on the civil service list. Under the Post Office Act it remains with the Postmaster General to increase the salaries of the others so that legislation is not necessary.


James Clancy: I am as wise now as I was before. I did not ask the Postmaster General what the scale formerly was. We have been told by his supporter (Mr. Belcourt) that the cost of living has increased from 30 to 40 per cent and the Postmaster General evidently pays no attention to that statement.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I heard my hon. friend (Mr. Belcourt) say that that increase extended over 30 years. Perhaps the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) can tell for what portion of that 30 years the Conservative government is responsible that they would not increase the salaries of the postmasters on account of the increased cost of living.
Mi-. CLANCY. The hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Belcourt) has been in the House for seven years and he never made the discovery until recently that the cost of living had so much increased. The Postmaster General has been seven years at the head of his department and he has not been able

to make up his mind yet as to whether the postmasters are paid too low salaries or not. He tells us that they will be notified when their salaries will be increased. I do not think the Postmaster General weighed his words when he said that. Did he think he was enlightening the House with such a statement ? He ought to be able to state from his seat as a minister whether he thinks the postmasters are sufficiently paid, and if they are not sufficiently paid that he will increase their salaries. I was not here the other evening, but I am told that the Postmaster General boasted that notwithstanding that the rate of postage had been materially reduced the revenue had gone up on account of the increased business.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not allude to it.


James Clancy: Perhaps I was misinformed as to that. The bon. gentleman would scarcely deny that he has said over and over again in the country that there had been a material reduction in the burdens of the people and a very substantial increase in the revenue. I do not know whether he is now prepared to recede from that position and admit that it is not the ease. The hon. gentleman knows perfectly well that the burdens on the people are greater now than they were in the matter of postage. The hon. gentleman, it is true, decreased the letter postage from three cents to two cents, but he has increased the postage on the other classes of second, third and fourth class matter, in some respects 100 per cent; and he has put this increased burden upon the class who are least able to bear it. Who are the people who, after all, benefit by the reduction in the postage from three to two cents ? It is not the taxpayer generally, but it is a few persons in the great business centres. Who are the class who make up for that ? The men who scarcely write two letters a year, but who use the mails to carry parcels of every description. I will give the hon. gentleman some instances of his splendid reductions and of the ways he has lightened the burdens of the people. Formerly newspapers were free for all distances in Canada ; now they are free only within a radius of twenty miles. Newspapers and periodicals posted at a place other than the place of publication were charged one cent for four ounces : now the hon. gentleman has them at one cent for two ounces, or an increase of 100 per cent. Newspapers, single copies, weighing not more than one ounce, were formerly charged half a cent each ; now they are charged one cent. Books, printed, of instruction, music, dra-wings, and other such books, were charged one cent for four ounces ; this has been increased to one cent for two ounces, or an increase of 100 per cent. Pamphlets, circulars, handbills, packages of seeds, plants, grafts and similar mail matter, were charged one cent for four ounces ; the post-Mr. CLANCY.
age is now one cent for two ounces, or an increase of 100 per cent. On maps, printing, drawings, lithographs, photographs, sheet music, deeds, wills, mortgages, chattel mortgages, insurance policies, voters' lists, assessment rolls, municipal returns, patterns, samples of merchandise, of which there are thousands pass through the mails daily, the hon. gentleman found the postage at one cent for two ounces, and doubled that by charging two cents for four ounces, this being the minimum on which the charge is made, which is an increase of 100 per cent. I might continue the list, but I have given the classes of mail matter on which the hon. gentleman has doubled up the rates. Then take the trade that is going on through the mails. The poorer classes of the people, from Halifax on one side to Vancouver on the other, go to the large cities of the province of Ontario, and some to Montreal, and pay this rate of postage on parcels of merchandise sent from these places to persons who use the mails for the purpose of getting these goods. The hon. gentleman has been able to take the burden of postage largely from one class of people and lay it on another class who do not use the mails except from dire necessity. These are fair samples of what a public benefactor the hon. gentleman has proved himself to be. He has starved the service in a most scandalous manner. Now. Sir, there was formerly a fair growth of post offices in this country during a period of great depression. I am going to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the number of post offices and the service he is giving the people during the period of expansion which we have been enjoying for some j'ears. The number of post offices in existence in 1890 was 7,913 : the number in existence in 1S90 was 9.103, an increase in six years of 1,190. That was during a period of very great depression, when the necessities of the country did not demand the increase that they did at a later date, when you would expect at least a corresponding increase. Now, what has been the hon. gentleman's record ? In 1902 the number of post offices w-as 9,958, or an increase of 855, as against an increase of 1,190 for the same period previously. How does the hon. gentleman account for that discrepancy? Does he mean to say that the people were so well supplied with post offices by the former government that he did not need to increase the number ? But I am told that it is almost impossible to wring a new post office from the hon. gentleman. He is always frightened that it will interfere with his revenue-with his surplus, as an hon. friend suggests. He would be very flattered to be told that he has a surplus ; but he has not a surplus. If the hon. gentleman is able to give the country a good service and to show a better balance on the credit side than has been shown in former years, he only does it to the extent to which he starves the service. But with the country growing as

it is at present, and with the immense territory of which Canada is made up, no Postmaster General can give a good service and at the same time show a credit balance. So the hon. gentleman has been driven to the rather discreditable device of concealing his accounts by showing to the public only a portion of the service. The hon. gentleman did that no doubt with the avowed object of showing how he had made the two sides of the ledger balance. Speaking for myself, I do not think this House or this country would expect any apology from the hon. gentleman, so long as he gave the country a good service, whether it paid its way or not. He has taken it off one class and put it on another, and to-day the public are paying more postage than before. The rate in 1896 was 93 cents per head, and today it is 96 cents per head, after all this pretended reduction. I know of no more conclusive evidence to show the fraud which the hon. gentleman is perpetrating on the people when pretending that he is lessening their burdens.


Samuel Hughes: Before this item passes I would like the hon. minister to explain how it happens that Mr. A. D. Mal-lon. who collected the letters from the boxes in the town of Lindsay was retired from his position ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: None of my officers are able to furnish me with this information to-night, but I will have the information for my hon. friend at a later period.


Samuel Hughes: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to bring down the letter which Mr. Mallon wrote him ? Mr. Mallon declined to support the Liberal candidate at the last election. He had previously been a faithful Liberal supporter, but for some reason or other he declined to support the Liberal candidate in 1900, and was forthwith dismissed. Can the hon. minister refresh his memory as to a conversation he had with this letter-carrier in which he promised to give him a permanency ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not remember ever having seen the gentleman in my life, much less ever having had a conversation with him.


Samuel Hughes: Nothing about putting his arms around his neck and saying he would make him permanent.


Tiie POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I never made any such statement.


Samuel Hughes: That you remember of ?
Mi'. JOHNSTON (Cardwell). The first session I was here I asked the hon. Postmaster General to do something, if possible, for the country post office keepers, and he promised he would try. The salaries of these men amount to from $15 to $20 and even less.
In fact the neighbours, who get their letters in these little offices, have to club together and pay fifty cents or $1 apiece in order to get the postmasters to keep the offices. I have listened to a great deal of information about the arrangements made for the benefit of the letter-carriers in the cities and towns and also for improving the positions of the postmasters there, who have their caretakers and are supplied with light and fuel, but I have yet to hear of anything being done for the poor country postmasters, who have to keep longer hours than do the men in the cities and towns, and who are not paid enough to heat their little offices. It is pretty hard that a country post office has to be run at a loss because the government will not supply the postmaster with sufficient wage to pay his running expenses. Were it not for the contributions of the neighbours, many of these post offices would have to be closed. The hon. gentleman has boasted of having given us a 2-cent rate, but that has had the effect of reducing the revenue in the country post offices and consequently of reducing the emoluments of the postmasters, so that the change is altogether against their interests. Three years ago the hon. gentleman asked me what I wished to have done and what suggestion I could make that would enable these men to be better paid and not run the department into debt. 1 made a suggestion, which I think a reasonable one, that in the cities and towns, where postmasters are paid $1,600 $1,700 a year and are furnished with fuel, light and a caretaker, they might be made to do with less and our country postmasters in the rural districts, even if it be only farmers who are served, the sum of $50 each for taking care of their little offices. If the hon. gentleman cannot do otherwise, let him take the money off the cities and add it to the rural districts.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Let me first inform the hon. gentleman that the reduction in the rate of postage has in no case led to any reduction in the salaries of the postmasters. When that reduction took place instructions were issued that there was to be no reduction in the salaries of the postmasters, even if the revenue should be reduced. The hon. gentleman suggests that there should be an increase of $50 to each country postmaster


Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell).: Not an increase, but that at least $50 be paid to each.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: A minimum of $50. That is not a new question. This same question has come up periodically for the last forty years. I heard it a great many times when I was on the other side, and the answer given then was what I must give my hon. friend now. Those small offices, to which my hon. friend alludes, are

not such as can be expected to supply a living to the incumbents. They are established merely to suit the convenience of groups of people. In fact, wherever there are a dozen people in a district, a post office is given them, even if it is within a short distance of an adjoining post office. It is a rare thing to refuse to establish a post office because of its close proximity to another, say within a mile or two. If the immediate neighbourhood desires it, the post office is given, but the result of the multiplication of these offices must be to diminish the revenue of each. The policy of multiplying these offices is a good one because it adds greatly to the conveniences of the people, and the postmasters enjoy some advantages besides the pay. For instance, they have the special advantage of getting their mail brought to their house, and I do not suppose that the salary can be considered as any remuneration. The salaries were not fixed by me, but are such as I found them fixed by my predecessors and confirmed by long usage. As to whether it is possible to increase them by giving each country postmaster $50 a year, that would mean a very considerable increase in our expenditure. It would mean an increase of $35 per year to each country postmaster. The number of increases would be very great. It would be rash for me to estimate the number, but perhaps it would not be out of the way to suppose it would require $100,000 to give an increase of $35 per head to the class of postmasters t-o whom the lion gentleman refers. So, while it does not seem much to suggest that an increase of $35 be given to a particular person, yet to give such an increase to all in that class involves a good deal of expenditure. Therefore, the proposition should not be entered upon lightly. The hon. member for Bothwell alluded to the increased rate, and suggested, amongst other things, that the people who purchased newspapers had to pay higher subscription rates because of it. I do not know to what case he alludes, but I myself have not heard of any instance where subscription rates have been increased because of the imposition of postage upon newspapers. But whether increased or not the imposition of rates on newspapers was, I think, justifiable. Parliament thought it was, and so made the increase. The hon. member from Bothwell says the reduction of the letter rate proved a benefit to none except to those in industrial centres. I do not admit the soundness of that proposition. Every man, be he a resident of an industrial centre or of a rural district, and no matter what be his walk of life, if he uses the post office at all, then to the extent that he uses it, he is benefited. The advantage of the lower rates of the letter postage are rateably distributed among the population in proportion as they make use


William Mulock: of the post office. I doubt very much if the great mass of the people of Canada, would if they could, return to the old rate. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Clancy) has a policy of that kind, if he would like to go back to the former rate, and would test the opinion of the House, we could have an interesting debate; and, if the majority favour the return to the three cent rate, that rate will come into effect, and the hon. gentleman will be able to feel that he has rendered a very distinguished service to the people in imposing great burdens upon them. The hon. gentleman speaks of increases in the rates in certain third and fourth class matter. The rate on merchandise passing through the post office is the same as when I took office. I have not changed that rate at all. The rate was one cent per ounce then, and it is one cent per ounce now. There were some changes made in some minor matters, the volume of which is very trifling comparatively. Ninety per cent of all the postal revenue is from letters alone, and the postage paid on these extra articles of mail matter to which the hon. gentleman alludes are comparatively trifling, so far as any effect on the revenue is concerned. Nevertheless, the present rates ai-e as low as they are in any place in the world. They are the same as those charged in the United States; and, I think that the Canadian rates on the classes of matter to which the hon. gentleman refers, are as low as in England, although our area is so much greater.


James Clancy: If the hon. minister will turn to his own report and compare it with the postal guides of 1896, he will find that the statement I have made is absolutely correct. Take, for instance, the first item here. ' Books printed, books of instruction, music books, drawing books,' were one cent for four ounces, they are now one cent for two ounces. Is that a correct statement ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That, is the rate throughout the United States.


James Clancy: That is not the question I asked.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What is the hon. gentleman's question ?


James Clancy: I will read it again. * Printed books, books of instruction, music books and drawing books,' formerly one cent for four ounces, now one cent for two ounces. Will the hon. gentleman deny that ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will let the hon. gentleman finish his piece-


James Clancy: I have asked the hon. minister a question in a courteous way. He said he did not increase the rates-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No. I did not make any such an observation.
air. CLANCY. Well, we will take the next item. ' Single copies of newspapers,

weighing not more than one ounce.' ' W hen the hon. gentleman came into office these paid one-half cent each; the charge at the present time is one cent each.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There has been no change on single newspapers.


James Clancy: The change appears in the postal guide and the hon. minister had better not speak from memory. But if the postal guide is not correct the hon. gentleman himself is responsible.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The secretary of the department informs me that there has been no change in the rate on single copies of newspapers since this government came into office.


James Clancy: Well, whether the change has been made or not, it appears in the postal guide. Now, take 1 pamphlets, circulars; seeds and plants,' the rate was one cent for four ounces, the present rate is one cent for two ounces-an increase of one hundred per cent. Then take the large class, ' maps, prints, drawings, lithographs, photographs, sheets of music, deeds, wills, mortgages, chattel mortgages, insurance policies, voters' lists, assessment rolls, municipal returns, patterns, samples of merchandise,' now one cent for two ounces, formerly two cents for four ounces, four ounces being the minimum. This practically doubles the rate. I take this from the guide that the hon. gentleman sent out for the instruction of the people. If he says the guide is wrong I shall have to leave it for him to settle it with his department. But the minister knows perfectly well that that class of matter of which there has been a very large increase, and which is still increasing, has gone up to the extent which I have stated. And I say that by reason of that, the reduction which the hon. gentleman has made to certain classes in this country has fallen on other classes. The hon. gentleman says that all classes are served alike by the reduction in letter postage. But any service of which a man may not be in a position to avail himself cannot be spoken of as a real advantage to him. Nor is the public service a fair one when only half the people can use the service, but all have to pay for it. I would ask the Postmaster General what the workingman has profited generally by this reduction V I will take the employees in Mr. Eaton's establishment, in his own city, and I will take the establishment itself. Who has profited by the reduction of the postage ? Why, that grfeat commercial concern has been saved thousands and thousands of dollars a year, and probably his employees do not write one letter a month. That is the effect of it. The hon. gentleman has laid down a rule that not one man in a hundred can avail himself of. The true rule is that every man should pay for the
service he gets. If a majority of the people are unable to avail themselves of it, and you give it to the minority in number, then that is not a fair service to the majority who don't use it, but who are paying for it in favour of the minority. That is the effect of the hon. gentleman's position today. If, on the other hand, the hon. gentleman was able to take off all the postage then it might be fair. But I repeat that the hon. gentleman has not only reduced the postage for the benefit of a few persons in Canada, but he has done what is worse, he has unloaded that reduction on to a class who do not use the mail except perhaps for third and fourth class matter. I am glad to know that the hon. gentleman does not dissent from my statement with regard to the increase in that matter that comes within the third and fourth class.
The POSTMASTER; GENERAL. I may explain to the hon. gentleman, as I did to the House, why the changes were made. When parliament was being asked to change the law, I explained that there were a number of different rates on mail matter, and a great deal of confusion was occasioned because, in many instances, there was difficulty in determining in which class the mail matter ought to fall. In the rapid despatch of business that law could not be really lived up to. In order to simplify the rates we removed many special rates. There were many different rates on different articles, for example lithographs and printed matter were charged differently. I cannot pretend to enter into all the niceties, but there were constant questions arising as to the class to which certain articles belonged. It was not a matter of count. When mail matter is passing through the post .one person may think it falls' in a certain class and is liable to a certain rate, and attach the necessary stamp upon it: while another postmaster may come to the conclusion that it ought to be rated differently. Then there was trouble. In order to meet the convenience of the public and to facilitate the transacting of business, we did away with these shades of difference by making the classification as it is now. The hon. gentleman says that every man should) pay for the service he gets. That is not altogether an unsound proposition. How then would he deal with the case of a man being called upon to pay for a service he does not use ? If a. man should only pay for the service he gets, that is another way of saying that he should not pay for the service he does not get. The hon. gentleman went on to argue that the poor man had no use for the post office, and yet under the old law the poor man had to pay the burden of the post office. Under the old administration to which we succeeded, there was an annual deficit of three fourths of a million dollars. Who paid that deficit ? The hon. gentleman shakes his

head. Who paid that deficit ? The poor man had to pay his share of it. The taxes have to be collected from the whole public, and under the system that the hon. gentleman seems to prefer, the poor men were taxed to pay for the mail service of the rich men. Under the present system the poor man has no deficit to pay for, and if he does chose to use the post office, he pays only two cents instead of three as formerly. I believe the poor man prefers to be called upon to pay two cents instead of three; I think he prefers not to pay a share of the three fourths of a million dollars of a deficit in the mail service of Canada. He is not now called upon to pay any such deficit, because there is none. The hon. gentleman knows that, and he must be extremely glad to know it. If the hon. gentleman, however, is desirous of restoring the three cent rate, the opportunity is open to him to present a proposition to this House to that effect. Let him have the courage to commit himseif to that view ; instead of skirmishing and harpiug, let him come out into the open like a man and make a proposition, then let him go back to Bothwell and see how the people there will approve such a retrograde step.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman's friends are taking good care that I shall not go back to Bothwell, because they are taking care that there shall be no such constituency as Bothwell. So his challenge is rather an empty one. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he has adopted a most extraordinary course of reasoning when he says that the poor man paid the deficit in the past when there was a three cent rate and now he does not pay a deficit under a two cent rate. How does a deficit arise V By reason of the revenue not being large enough to pay for the service; then there is a greater chance of a deficit. I ask the hon. gentleman, who is so willing to challenge me to take a course that he would not dare to take himself, I ask him to tell this House what lie intends to do with regard to the country postmasters. The hon. gentleman knows the answer he gave me. He had less courage then than he now enjoins me to have upon the question. I want to tell the hon. gentleman that we are not supposed to find politiees for the government. We have no responsibilities, and when the hon. gentleman throws out his challenges to this side of the House 1 want to tell him that he is not very courageous. He knows perfectly well that our responsibility is to criticise the conduct of the government, criticise it fairly and honestly, and I hope we have done so. Now the hon. gentleman has declared over and over again that he has a surplus. Does he say now that for the last year ending the 30tii of June, 1902, there was a surplus in his department, considering all the services throughout the Dominion ? Does he say Sir WILLIAM MITLOCK.
that ? I will venture to say that the hon. gentleman will not say so; while he says in an off-hand way, rolling it out, that there was a surplus and I knew it. The hon. gentleman did some juggling. I will venture to say that if the Yukon paid its way and a little more the hou. gentleman would include it. But, if the hon. gentleman finds there is any part in the service that is not paying its way he side-tracks that and he says :	I gave it in my statement, 1 will
exclude that, I will find a surplus, and I am not deceiving the public because I made some mention of that elsewhere. I will ask the hon, gentleman if this is an honourable way of treating the public ? The public will understand the hon. gentleman. The hon. gentleman is anxious for one thing and that is to appear before the country as having been a great reformer in regard to postal matters. His reforms have consisted in starving the postmasters.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We are paying them as much as they got under the former administration.


James Clancy: My hon. friend says they got as much under the former government. Does he mean to say that if it should appear to him now that they were not fully paid under the former .government, he is relieved from the responsibility of giving them their rights now ? The hon. gentleman is very fond of saying that he has changed matters as he found them under the former government. If that is the case why not change this ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Everything we found was bad.


James Clancy: Quite so. I think the country is beginning to discover that. To give the reason that the former government, under different conditions, paid the same salaries as are paid now, is to my mind not a fair answer to the question.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Why is it not ?


James Clancy: I will tell the hon. gentleman why.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, that would be interesting.


James Clancy: As the hon. gentleman beside me '(Mr. Johnston Cardwell) pointed out a moment ago the duties of postmasters have increased. There are many places where they have to serve other offices. I have a case in my mind where the postmaster getting the same salary that he got when the hon. gentleman came in has certain other post offices to attend to. His office became a distributing point for one or two other places, but he still received the same salary as he did before.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If there is any distribution work assigned to a man he is paid for it according to a regular scale, and if the hon. gentleman will give

me the name of the office to which he alludes, we will see whether there is any distribution work for which the postmaster is not being paid and if there is he will be paid for it. It does not depend upon me. The officers automatically deal with all such cases and they give the postmasters the payment they are entitled to according to the scale provided for distribution work.


James Clancy: That is not salary.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is in addition to salary.


James Clancy: I am speaking of the increased duties that are devolving upon postmasters.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Distribution to other offices.


James Clancy: Quite so, but the hon. gentleman knows perfectly . well that he must be there to take these mails and that by reason of the increased duties devolving upon him the increased sum paid him for distribution is not a fair compensation for the additional time he has to give that work by reason of being postmaster.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The rate was in force when he took office.


James Clancy: The rate may have been too low. The hon. gentleman has been told by a zealous supporter of his own that these are growing times, that prices have increased, that the cost of living is greater and so on. If he pays any attention to it he knows perfectly well that the answer he gives in regard to that being the rate when he came into office is not a fair answer.
Mr. JOHNSTON (Cardwell.) I am pleased to know that I will be able to go back and tell the postmasters in my constituency that there is no hope held out by the hon. Postmaster General to them of an increase in their salaries. A few years ago when I spoke to the hon. Postmaster General, he said that he would give the subject his best consideration. He said that he was in favour of an increase and that he advocated it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say that I advocated it.


Robert Johnston: The. hon. Postmaster General at least agreed in effect with what 1 said. Now, I can go back to the postmasters and tell them that the hon. Postmaster General says there is no relief for them. That is my understanding of the hon. gentleman's position. Notwithstanding that we heard him to-night declare in a braggadocio manner that he was increasing the salaries of the letter-carriers in the towns and cities, he refused to increase the salaries of postmasters in country places. These postmasters have to buy their own wood, they have to provide for themselves and the citizens who have to pay something out of their own pockets to get their papers.
Yet, the Postmaster General says there is no relief for them. Is that what I shall tell them, Mr. Postmaster General ? I am in earnest about it. I did tell them that the Postmaster General had said that he would give their case his most serious consideration, that he believed they had a grievance and that he would try to remedy it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think not.


Robert Johnston: I cannot quote the exact words, but that is the effect of the hon. gentleman's answer given to me a few years ago. I have had letters from some of the postmasters in my constituency asking me if they could not get some more remuneration for keeping the post office in the country, but I must now go back to them and say that the hon. Postmaster General holds no hope to them. They only get $20 for keeping a post office open, and if the stage comes along at seven o'clock in the morning they have to be up to see to tile mail and they have to continue, with perhaps some interruption, distributing letters until night. I think their request is a reasonable one and especiallv in view of the fact that the salaries of the letter-carriers and the salaries of ther officials have been raised. When you talk about the expense of living and the good times that we are having in this country, I think it is only fair that the salaries of these men should be raised to $50 for keeping a country post office. It would not cost any more to raise the salaries of the postmasters of the country to $50 a year, the amount they ask, than it would cost to raise the salaries of the letter-carriers in the cities. Some of the postmasters who are getting $20 would only require to have $30 added to their present salaries to make up the $50. To the salaries of others who are getting more you would have to add less, while, of course, to those who are getting $10 the increase would be greater. In .Caledon there is one man getting $20 and there is no other post office nearer than three and a half miles. For two and a half miles around the people come to the post office for their papers and the postmaster is on duty the whole day, handing out papers and only getting $20 a year for it. I leave it to the good sense of the House if it is fair to treat a man in that way.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Would the hon. gentleman give the name of that office ?


Robert Johnston: It is Sles-wick, between Caledon East and Mono Mills. There is another, Blount, in Mono.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have listened with much interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Cardwell (Mr. Jolin-stjon).^ He very rarely trespasses on the time of the House and he always speaks with great earnestness. I tell him with all

frankness that I have the greatest respect for any view he may advance to this House,
I know he is most conscientious in the presentation of any case. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) must have misunderstood me if he thought I promised to deal with the subject. I may have expressed myself to the effect that these positions were rather nominal so far as salary goes, because these offices are established to accommodate very small groups of people, and more for the convenience of the neighbourhood than anything else. The postmaster of such an office as the hon. gentleman alludes to does not expect a substantial sum in the_ sense of salary. A small allowance having no reference to the time or labour involved is all he expects. It does not involve a man devoting himself to the post office ; as a rule it is carried on in a private house and some member of the family is always present. It will never be possible to remunerate people who keep post offices of that kind. For instance, I find from the report of the Postmaster General for the last iiscal year that the revenue of the Sleswick post office was $18.91. and that the postmaster was paid $20. The revenue represented only three letters a day posted at that office and therefore you will see that it serves only a very small group of people. But if it should happen that this post office has to be kept open at unreasonable hours because of the time of the arrival and the departure of the mails, this circumstance might be taken into consideration and the subject dealt with specifically, but it is one thing to deal with special cases and another thing to deal with the question generally. If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Johnston) will be good enough to give me the facts connected with that particular case it will be looked into, and if I am not able to accede to his wishes it is not because I have not the greatest respect for anything he may say in this House.


Robert Johnston: I may say to the Postmaster General that a great many farmers get their papers at this post office, and as I said three years ago, Sleswick and other country post offices are great distributing offices but very poor receiving offices, because a great many people go to Mono Mills and Caldedon East and Charleston and buy their postage stamps there where they do their business, but they post their letters at Sleswick and consequently the revenue from the latter post office is comparatively very small. But there is a great deal of distributing to be done at the post office and a great deal of work to do. There are a great many other post offices in the same fix, and I hope that the postmaster at Sleswick will get something done for him. As the Postmaster General says some one has to be in the office all the time and there is not a holiday in the year that they can close the post office ; some one has to stay there and miss the enjoyment of the holiday.


William Mulock: Anything I can do to aid the postmaster to obtain fair remuneration I will be most willing to do it.


Mr. SCOTT.: I do not for a moment seek to minimize the importance of the case which my hon. friend from Cardwell has been urging, but I do not agree with his suggestion that a certain amount should be cut from the pay of the town postmasters, in order to make up to the country postmasters. It is a poor proposition that an injustice should be perpetrated upon one class of the people for the sake of remedying the grievance of another class of the people. I can tell my hon. friend (Mr. Johnston) that so far as western Canada is concerned he is mistaken in thinking that the allowance given to the town postmasters is excessive. Since the commencement of this session the accounting postmasters, including the town postmasters of Manitoba and the North-west Territories, deemed it advisable to go to the expense of sending a delegation to Ottawa to present to the minister the grievances under which they labour. I know of one particular case where an allowance of $14 per month is paid to a town postmaster for rent, fuel, and light, and that postmaster is at present paying $25 per month for the premises he occupies as the post office, and which premises are only half the size that are required for that town. That is at Moosejaw.


Mr. THOMSON (Grey).: What is the population ?


Thomas Walter Scott: When the census was taken it was 2,000 and probably it would be 3,000 r ow.


Edward Frederick Clarke: It is a divisional point.


Thomas Walter Scott: It is a railway divisional point, and quite an important place. The revenue from Moosejaw will be as large I suppose as that of a town of 7,000 or
8,000	or even 10,000 population. If the postmaster there was obliged to rent the building now I venture to say that he could not obtain it for less than $40 a month, and yet be is only allowed $14 a month for rental, fuel and light. I rose particularly to ask the Postmaster General if he has yet reached a decision with regard to the petition of the delegation that waited on him during the early weeks of the session to represent the interests of the town postmasters of Manitoba and the North-west Territories. The other day the Postmaster General told us when we were discussing his Bill relating to the increase of salaries of mail clerks, that he would consider certain matters if they were brought to his attention when the estimates were being discussed. I then complained of the insufficiency of the accommodation afforded by the mail' cars furnished by the railway companies. I stated that it had been found necessary to put the mails in box cars and

that sometimes on a train there would be a box car full of mail matter. As I stated the other day, the work of the mail clerks of the western division is rendered almost impossible.
There is another matter which, while on my feet, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General. The appeals I have been making have been on behalf of a very limited number of people. I now wish to appeal on behalf of about
75.000	people who are served by the mail service on the Prince Albert branch railway. Last year I brought to the attention of the hon. Postmaster General the service on the Pasqua line, which forms a part of the Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway, and I am very pleased to say that since that matter was sipoken of a step has been taken in the direction of giving a proper service to the country traversed by that line, by putting a mail car and a mail clerk on the railway. The same kind of service is very urgently required on the Prince Albert branch. At present the service is on the baggage car. There is no mail car and no mail clerk ; and when we recollect that that branch serves the whole Saskatchewan district^ which two years ago contained 26,000 people and must this year contain 60,000 people, and also a large portion of the district of Assiniboia, and it is not too much to say that
75.000	people are served by that branch line.


Robert Johnston: The hon. gentleman who has just sat down misunderstood me when he said that I recommended that the salaries of postmasters of cities and towns should be cut down. Two years ago I advocated increasing the remuneration of tlie country postmasters, and the Postmaster General asked me what I would propose. I said that if there was no other way of meeting their requirements, I would even go the length of taking something from the salaries of those who were getting from $1,500 to $2,000 a year and dividiug it among the postmasters in little country places. I did not say that that should be done, but I said that if the revenue of the country would not permit it to be done in any other way, I would resort to that.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for Western Assiniboia has asked for an improved service bn the Prince Albert branch. The comptroller of the mail service informs me that until this year the trains on that branch were only running tri-weekly, and the mails could not be sent more frequently than that. But since there has been a daily train there has been a daily mail service. He informs me that no application has been made for any different service from the one now in existence.


Thomas Walter Scott: I must inform the Postmaster General that the comptroller must 190
be mistaken, because months ago 1 wrote to the department applying for and recommending a mail car and mail clerk on this line.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: To whom did you write ?


Thomas Walter Scott: My recollection is that I wrote to the deputy minister, and since the commencement of this session I have had conversations with the comptroller about the matter, and I have again written on one or two occasions to the deputy minister to the same effect. It is quite true, as the Postmaster General states, that this spring the railway company put on a daily train, and a daily mail service has also been put on, for which the department is entitled to due credit. But the baggage car service is not sufficient for the large number of people served by that line.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The deputy informs me that he has not received any communication from the hon. gentleman.


Thomas Walter Scott: Then there must be something radically wrong with the mail service, if my letters have not reached the deputy.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Is this the proper time to ask for information in regard to the disposition of the automobiles which were formerly used for the collection of mail matter from the letter boxes in the city of Toronto, and in regard to the contract which has been let for the collection of this matter, and also in regard to the conveyance of the mail to the station ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The deputy informs me that the automobiles have not been dispensed with, but are still in use. But in some parts of the city they cannot be used owing to the state of the streets. They are used considerably for running between the branches and also between the post offices and the station. A contract was let this spring to a man named Power for collecting the mail matter from the letter boxes. It was let by public tender.


Edward Frederick Clarke: How many tenders were received ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The deputy thinks four or five.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Were there advertisements calling for tenders ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Mr. Power was the lowest tenderer ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was.	,


Edward Frederick Clarke: Has the department to supply wagons ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, he is to supply wagons.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There were no wagons bought by the department ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No.


Mr. MCLENNAN.: I wish to call the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to the inefficiency of the postal seryice in the [DOT]county of Inverness, and to ask him if he has any encouragement to hold out of any improvement in that service ? I would like also to have some explanation of the attempted conversion of a daily service of some fifty miles into a tri-weekly service. The people of Inverness do not feel secure that some official may not take it into his head to dismantle the postal service in that county at any moment.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will assure my hon. friend at once that I will never take into my head any such idea as that. I will attempt to give the county of Inverness the best service it is possible to give it, having due regard to the interests of the county and of the country generally. I will be able at a later stage to give the hon. gentleman all the information he desires on the subject he refers to. He correctly stated the other evening that I was absent from Canada at the time, and I cannot speak with any personal knowledge of the subject ; but, if I remember rightly, he heard of the proposed dismantling of the service from an officer on a train, and he immediately put himself in communication with the Finance Minister, who looked after his interests in the matter ; so that even if the postal service was insufficient, my hon. friend was fortunate in having the Finance Minister here to look after the interests of the county of Inverness. Although I was absent, I had an efficient colleague who saw that no injustice was done to the county of Inverness, and I can assure my hon. friend that I will be very careful to follow the lead he has set me.


Angus McLennan: I called the attention of the hon. Postmaster General the other evening to the insufficient postal service on the Inverness railway. I also did so last session and he gave me every assurance that he would look into th* matter. The service is somewhat akin to that referred to by the bon member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott). The mails are only taken on as baggage. They are taken through the county of Inverness, a distance of sixty-one miles, over the Inverness Railway, and through the county of Antigonisk on to the Intercolonial Railway, tliesce through Pic-tou county until they meet the east bound train for Sydney. The letters are then sorted by the mail clerks on the Intercolonial Railway mail car, taken back, and distributed along the Inverness Railway that evening or the next day. This I am thoroughly aware of and what no explanation of the officials can justify. We have good reason for complaint, and I only Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
hope that the hon. minister will mete out to the people of Inverness the same measure of justice that he has been pleased to give to the people of Assiniboia, in the instance of one railway which passes through that county. With regard to the other railways which go through Assiniboia, the hon. gentleman has promised to give the complaints his attention. All I ask is that the county of Inverness be similarly treated, as are those jieople who recently came into our western country. The people of Inverness have been residing there a long time, and are at least as much entitled to consideration as are the people who have come from every country in Europe into the Northwest in recent years. Let me also point out to the hon. gentleman that when the post office inspector of Nova Scotia went among the people of Inverness asking for tenders for a tri-weekly service for a distance of fifty miles, where formerly for thirty-five years there was a daily mail service, that matter was not at all so light and unimportant as the hon. the Postmaster General seems to view it, and the people really feel grateful to the hon. Minister of Finance who came to their rescue and will continue to feel under an obligation to him, as I certainly do.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What is the amount paid for the services rendered by Mr. Powell ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will have that on the supplementary estimates.


Angus McLennan: The Postmaster General has not stated what he intends doing for the county of Inverness.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend asks me to do as well for the Inverness Railway as I have done for the Prince Albert branch. Well, it is given as good a service as is given on the Prince Albert branch. What the hon. gentleman really wishes is the establishment of a mail car on the railway.


Angus McLennan: Certainly.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is what the hon. gentleman desires.


Angus McLennan: I desired it last year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There are many things we desire which we cannot get. The establishment of a railway mail car service is somewhat expensive and cannot always be had. We must have some regard for the cost and the revenue and the district served. There are many places throughout Canada which have not postal car service. It has never been the practice of any government to establish indiscriminate postal car service, but to consider the merits of each application. I was speaking with the comptroller, and he informed me that he has the application of the county of Inverness under consideration. He is the expert officer who advises me with regard to

these matters, and I am sure he will be guided by the best interests of the country, and I hope that that will not conflict with the interests of the people of Inverness.


Mr. McGOWAN.: Some months ago, on the Wellington, Grey and Bruce branch of the Grand Trunk Railway, a fast train was put on connecting with Guelph and trains for the east, west and south, but there is no mail on that train which comes down in the evening. It would be a great convenience if it were given the mails, as it is one of the fastest trains on the road, and connects at Guelph with all the trains going east, west and south.


Peter Macdonald: The discussion of the mail service is not in order on the item before the committee. We had better pass the first item.


Mr. BLAIN.: I understood the hon. minister to say that the same allowances are given the country postmasters as were given by the previous government.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I said that we were dealing with them in the same scale. Whatever the scale was when I took office is in force to-day.


Richard Blain: That would leave rather a false impression on the committee. You would naturally suppose that the country postmasters were receiving the same salaries to-day as under the former administration. But the hon. gentleman has told us that the revenue, in a large number of the smaller post offices, is less than it was before, because more post offices have been established, which necessitates a greater division of the revenue among them. That being the case, I suppose it is fair to assume that the average country postmaster is receiving less now than he did under the former administration.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My officers inform me that that is not correct. There are fluctuations in salaries as there are in revenues, but some salaries are fixed. Where the salary is in proportion to the revenue, that is where it is paid by a commission, there is fluctuation, but there has been no reduction of revenue because of any reduction in the rate of postage.


Angus McLennan: I see that the comptroller of the railway mail service is here, and I wish to call his attention to the fact that the hon. the Postmaster General has reduced the cost of the mail service in the county of Inverness by over 55,000 a year for the last seven years. That would amount to something like $35,000. When the comptroller is called upon to make a report with regard to putting a mail clerk on board that train I hope he will take into consideration the fact that $35,000 has been sweated out of that service in the past seven years.
190}	.


Richard Blain: I confess that I do not follow the statement made by the hon. Postmaster General with respect to the salaries of country postmasters. I am anxious to get the information and have no other object. Am I to understand that the salaries of postmasters do not increase with the revenue of their jjoat offices ? Or, if that is not a correct statement, will the hon. gentleman give us an illustration of how the sliding scale he speaks of applies to a country district like his own county ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The scale of payment to the postmasters paid by way of commissions^ is as follows : 40 per cent upon the gross revenue up to $800, 25 per cent on the excess between $800 and $10,000; 15 per cent on the excess over $10,000.


Richard Blain: If the revenue is $150, do I understand the Postmaster General to say the postmasters receives 40 per cent on that amount ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Richard Blain: The hon. gentleman's (Hon. Sir William Mulock) report does not appear to bear that out, as he will see by referring to the case of almost any country post office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The accountant of the department tells me that that is lived up to.


Richard Blain: Would the hon. minister turn to the case referred to by the hon. member for Cardwell, that of Sleswick.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I except from that, offices where there is a fixed salary. In the case of Sleswick, the postmaster is paid a fixed salary of $20. The gross revenue there is $18. In these small, minor offices, the rule does not apply. Forty per cent on $1 would be only $7.20. Therefore the rule does not apply.


Richard Blain: The hon. minister's statement was misleading, therefore I did not understand him. He makes the statement that up to $800 the postmasters are paid, by commission.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I qualified that.


Richard Blain: Then, the fact is that the Postmaster General was not discussiug the underpaid postmasters whose cases the committee ane trying to understand. Will he tell us what is the policy of the government with regard to the payment of postmasters where the revenue runs from $18 up to $50 ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The accountant informs me that where the revenue is $30 or under, the 40 per cent does not apply, because it would give the posh master less than is desirable; but, above $sfe I the scale is applied.


Richard Blain: Then, do I understand that if the revenue of the post office is $40 the salary of the postmasters is $10 V If that statement is correct then the hon. gentleman's report is not correct.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: In the case of a small office, where the salary has been fixed in years gone by, that salary has not been lowered even where the revenue has fallen. Therefore, the hon. gentleman will find many eases of postmasters receiving a fixed sum which is far in excess of 40 per cent of the revenue. These fixed fees have been handed down to us by our predecessors.


Richard Blain: Here is an office the revenue of which is $36, in a country district in the province of Ontario. According to the hon. minister's scale, what payment would the postmaster receive ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If he is paid by a percentage, it would be 40 per cent of the revenue, and the hon. gentleman ([DOT]Mr. Blain) can compute that. But, it may be that the salary was fixed at some anterior time and has not been disturbed.


Richard Blain: Then, the hon. gentleman's statement with respect to 40 per cent does not hold good there ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What is the office ?


Richard Blain: I find it at page 35 of the Postmaster General's Report. Take any of the offices there. The one I was referring to was Dunkeld in the country of Bruce.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The postmaster is paid $20.


Richard Blain: What is the scale of revenue in a case like that ? They vary in every page of this report. The hon. minister must not misunderstand my desire; all I want is to know what the policy of the department is with respect to the payment of postmasters in country districts where the revenue runs from $40 to $150. Is there any fixed policy ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) asks about a case like; Dunkeld which has a revenue of $36 and the postmaster is paid $20. The officers of the department explained to me that that $20 was evidently paid soihe years ago, probably when the revenue was higher. It may have fallen because of some other offices being opened near it, or for some other cause, but the department has not lowered his salary. But if this were an office to be opened in the first instance today, the scale would apply. We do not, however, apply the scale to reduce the salaries which we found in existence.


Richard Blain: Then, the fact is that where a country postmaster received $20 in former days, he receives the same salary now.


William Mulock: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is the rule.
Mr. BLAIN The post office at Dunlop in the county of Gloucester, has a revenue of $34.75. Can the hon. gentleman tell us, according to his scale, what the postmaster would receive in that case ? He says the postmasters are paid a percentage when the revenue is above $30.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: According to the scale it would be 40 per cent.


Richard Blain: The policy of the government is what I want to get at. Where the revenue of the post office is $34.75, what is the policy the hon. gentleman applies to the payment of the postmasters ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have answered that question several times. The policy of the department is to pay the postmaster aeording to a certain scale. Where the revenue is small and a fixed allowance is made, the commission system of remuneration does not apply, but in other cases it does apply, and then the postmasters are paid a commission according to the volume of the revenue, subject to the qualification which I made some time ago that we do not, and have not, reduced any salaries based upon a commission where the reduction of revenue was in consequence of a reduction of the rate of postage.


Mr. GLARE.: The hon. gentleman says that the postmasters are paid according to the revenue in towns of 2,000 or 3,000 inhabitants. In Ridgetown, where the revenue is $3,496, the salary is $1,000. In Morrisburg, where the revenue is $3,202, the salary is $1,000. It cannot therefore be on a fixed percentage that these two salaries are paid.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The accountant informs me that the amount of salary is based upon the revenue of the preceding year. For example we are now in the month of July, the fiscal year closes the 30th June, in a short time the revenue from the post offices of Canada will be ascertained, and then the department will fix the salaries for the current year according to the revenue up to the 30th of June last. I do not know from what year the hon. gentleman takes his figures.


George Adam Clare: 1902.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Well, the salary commencing on the first day of July, 1902. was based upon the revenue for the fiscal year that closed on the 30th of June, 1902. So the hon. gentleman will have to take the report of the previous year. The accountant informs me that the same rule applies to all.


George Adam Clare: Then the revenues of these pest offices were a year ago exactly the same, but the figures do not show it. For the information of the Postmaster General,

I will refer to the town of Preston, where the revenue is $3,907, or $700 more than in Morrisburg, and the salary is $950, while in Morrisburg the salary is $1,000. I will take Newmarket, where the revenue of the post office is $3,405, and the salary is $985. At Mount Forest, the revenue is $3,567 and the salary $1,120. I hope the statement of the Postmaster General that the salaries are based upon a percentage will be carried out. But I cannot see how the salaries in Ridge-tcwn and Morrisburg should be exactly the same where the revenues are not the same.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Is the hon. gentleman quoting figures for the present year or the preceding year 7


George Adam Clare: For the preceding year.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then the figures are not the figures upon which the salaries at the present moment are based.


George Adam Clare: When we look at the allowances paid to postmasters, I find that at Morrisburg the salary and allowances are $1,573, where the revenue is $3,200 : While in Preston, w ith a revenue of nearly $4,000, the salary and allowances are $1,208.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot to-night explain the figures of the department in regard to these post offices. But the accountant who is present informs me that the rule I have quoted several times is applied. If the hon. gentleman desires any information with regard to revenue of salaries in any office, he wall be furnished it, the department wrill endeavour to satisfy the hon. gentleman. I never interfere with the salaries paid to postmasters. Changes are made automatically by the department, and each postmaster is entitled to his rights, and if he does not get them it is certainly r.ot my fault.


George Adam Clare: I suppose the Postmaster General will see to it that if the postmaster at Preston does not get his salary according to the percentage, he will be paid the amount due him for past services.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly, and every one else.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I would like
to ask the hon. Postmaster General if the vacancy at Chatsworth has been filled and if so by whom ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the name, but I understand there has been an appointment.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I understand that Mr. Macdonald of Chatsworth, a local banker, was appointed to that position. The hon. Postmaster General visited that district during the by-election and the result of it was that a promise which had been given by the late representative (Dr. Horsey), was not carried out. The late Dr. Horsey promised that appointment to Mr. Dobie. It is to be regretted that his wishes were not carried out in this matter. It seems to be a matter of the basest ingratitude on the part of the Liberal party and I say that the least the hon. Postmaster General could have done was to carry out the wishes of the late Dr. Horsey in this matter.


Richard Blain: I want to ask the hon. Postmaster General how it comes that where an office, Dwight, in the Muskoka and Parry Sound district, has a revenue of $130, the salary of the postmaster is $50, while at another office, Dyment, Algoma, which has a revenue of $129, the salary is $70. This is a matter that requires some explanation so that we will be able to understand how these salaries are fixed.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will have the information for the hon. gentleman.


Edward Hackett: I, would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General if any letter-carriers are employed in Prince Edward Island. We have Charlottetown with a population of 12,000 and Summerside with a population of 4,000, and there is no mail delivery outside of the general post office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It has not been the practice to establish the letter-carrier system generally throughout Canada in all cities and towns, and there has been no fixed rule upon this subject, but I fancy the practice has been to adopt the system in the leading cities. Of course, I would not underestimate the importance of Charlottetown. It is the largest city in the province of Prince Edward Island. At the same time, compared with other centres of population throughout the Dominion, there are many much more populous than Charlottetown that have not yet had the benefit of the letter-carrier system. I did not find when I took office that the late government had favourably dealt with the case of Charlottetown. I did not find that they were prepared to establish the letter-carrier system at Charlottetown, and I have not yet been able to take exception to that view. I hope, however, that Charlottetown will grow in importance, wealth and population and win for itself the distinction of having a free letter delivery system established there.


Edward Hackett: I am very much pleased to get the explanation of the hon. Postmaster General and I am in hopes that Charlottetown will grow in importance. But, the hon. member for West Elgin (Mr. Robinson) spoke the other day in favour of a rural distribution of mails and I would suppose that a city like Charlottetown, having a population of 12,000 or 13,000, would be entitled to some advantage in that respect. The hon. Postmaster General received a

letter from me a few days ago in regard to the post office at Portage on the line of the Prince Edward Island Railway. Has the hon. gentleman considered that matter ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The practice would be that the letter would be forwarded to the inspector on the island to make his report. I suppose it has not yet been received.


Edward Hackett: I desire also to call the attention of the hon. Postmaster General to another matter in regard to a place called lot 14, in Prince county, where there is a semi-weekly mail and where the people are now very anxious to have a daily mail. This is quite an important village. They have lately established a cheese factory and as other matters in connection with the business of the country are progressing they ask that this semi-weekly mail should be superseded by a daily mail. I trust the hon. minister will take into consideration the requirements of that part of the country. He should only have to ask his inspector down there in regard to the propriety of having this request earned out and that gentleman would say that in consequence of the establishments there that the farmers require this further accommodation for the purpose of carrying on their affairs.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Has there been a formal application made to the department as to this increased mail service ? If there has been such an application it will go to the inspector and be reported on, then his report will come to the department, will be considered, and if the report shows the service should be increased it will be increased, but if it does not show that I am afraid it will not be increased. We have to depend upon the case presented by the inspector.


Edward Hackett: I have always found the hon. minister on the report of his inspector to act fairly by the people, and although I cannot say positively, I am pretty sure that the inspector will report in favour of the increased accommodation. I have always found that when a good prima facie case was made out the hon. Postmaster General was likely to fall in with what was suggested.


Thomas Inkerman Thomson: I do not think the Postmaster General has given all the information in connection with this appointment at Chatsworth. I think he must have some knowledge of the appointment, because he was there during the by-election, and no doubt talked it over. If the appointment was not made by him, I would like to know who recommended the appointment. These are simple questions that should be answered.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not the practice to inform the House on Mr. HACKETT.
whose nomination any one is appointed. The minister takes the responsibility. If there has been an appointment made at Chatsworth I take the responsibility of that appointment, and I have made it on what I deemed proper authority. More than that I am not able to say.


Mr. MORIN.: In the county which I have the honour to represent there are three postmasters, one of whom has been keeping the post office for thirty-three years, another one for twenty-six years, and another for twenty years. Before I left home in March these three gentlemen came to me and asked me to request the Postmaster General if he will allow them for house rent.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What are the names please ?


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I will give the names a little later on. They see an item in the estimates for rent of post offices, and they think they should be allowed rent for their post offices. They are not very extravagant people and they would be satisfied with $12 a year each. They do not claim any back rent, but they believe that if the government pays rent for post offices elsewhere, they should have an allowance for rent. In the town in which I live the post office has been opened for fifty years and the present postmaster has been in charge for thirty-three years. A little bit of a scale has been sent to the postmaster that is of no use at all, and it is not suitable for the requirements of the office. Now I think the Postmaster General should send a scale to that postmaster. He cannot weigh five pounds of mail matter on a scale that will only fit one pound. If the Postmaster General-wishes, I will go to the Post Office Department and tell the deputy the names of the postmasters who asked for an increase.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yery well. The deputy informs me that the postmasters are entitled to a set of scales equal to the requirements of the office.


Mr. BENNETT.: What was the value of the issue of the so called jubilee stamps, and what was the highest denomination I


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is six years ago since they were issued, and I cannot exactly say what the issue was, but the highest denomination was $5.


William Humphrey Bennett: It is a matter of general complaint throughout the country that a large number of these so called jubilee stamps are now repudiated by the government. That is serious when you come to think that some of them have a denomination of $5. When the issue was placed upon the market a great number of children were induced to buy them, and as a consequence some of these stamps are yet held by people

throughout the country. It is due to the holders of these stamps that an order should immediately be issued by the department that one cent or two cent stamps should be exchanged in return for these stamps of large denomination. It is not creditable to a great country like this that it should issue stamps and then repudiate them. If they are not exchanged, a great deal of loss and inconvenience will be suffered by a great many people. What does the Postmaster General propose to do ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is ample occasion of making use of these stamps in Canada. It is not necessary to affix them to a letter. There are many ways in which postage far in excess of $5 can be paid. There is no country in the world that redeems postage stamps. When postage stamps are issued they are issued for good. Occasionally when there has been a fire in a post office, or where by some accident a large quantity of stamps become soiled and useless, we have substituted others for them. There is a large amount of mail matter mailed in Canada and posted in bulk ; there is not a particular stamp fixed to each piece of mail matter, but the payment is made on the bulk amount. For example, take a news ageit who is sending out magazines in great quantities. There is no separate postage stamp put on each separate piece, but the payment is made in bulk. The Toronto post office receives daily large sums, sometimes in money, sometimes in postage, and these stamps are just as goods as any other stamps.


William Humphrey Bennett: ' I find, on reference to the Postmaster General's report, that there *was on hand at the beginning of this year $30,680 worth of Jubilee stamps, and that there was on hand at the close of the year $30,680 worth. In other words, there was not a buyer in the whole Dominion for one of these stamps. This goes to show that people know that these stamps are practically worthless unless they can be converted into stamps of lower denominations. I cannot understand where it would be possible, in the ordinary course of trade, for people to require a $5 stamp, and there is the fact standing plain that the department have been utterly unable to sell any of these stamps. May I ask, does the department hand out these stamps as it does current and negotiable stamps ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The deputy informs me that the value the hon. gentleman refers to of these high denominations has been reduced by over $7,000, to some $23,000 at the present time. I repeat that the stamps are available, there is a legitimate demand for them, and all any one requires to do with these stamps, if he does not want to use them, is to transmit them where they will be used. I have not any doubt that if any person wants to exchange
these stamps for stamps of smaller denominations, the department will accede to his request.


William Humphrey Bennett: Then, do I understand that any person applying to the department at Ottawa will have smaller stamps issued in exchange for $5 stamps or other stamps of large denomination ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not say that it would be done at any post office. It might inconvenience the postmaster by depriving him of the necessary supply of stamps for the ordinary use of customers; but if transmitted to the head office here, the exchange would readily be made.


Mr. LENNOX.: I would like to ask the hon. Postmaster General about the establishment of a branch post office in the northern part of the town of Barrie. In speaking of this, it will be recognized that I am speaking of something in a constituency which I do not represent. However, I am speaking with the consent of the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. McCarthy) to whom I spoke about the matter to-night. About a year ago I was requested to prepare a petition for this post office. I did so, and it was numerously signed. The matter was inaugurated, I think, by a gentleman named Sproatt. The post office would be available to a large number of people in the northern part of the town of Barrie, and in the country roundabout, who cannot be very well served by the post office at Barrie. It is pointed out that a place could be got for the post office on the line of the mail route between Barrie and Midhurst, and that it would be a great convenience to a large section of the country as well as a considerable section of the town, and I do not know that it would entail any expense on the Post Office Department.


Mr. MCCARTHY.: The petition which the hon. gentleman has spoken of was forwarded by him through me to the Postmaster and was urged upon the Postmaster General by me for his consideration. I received a reply, which I communicated to my hon. friend, that it would receive the consideration of the Postmaster General. I do not think the situation of the post office is quite correctly stated by my hon. friend. I do not think it is in the limits of the town of Barrie, but outside the limits. It was to be called Yespra, after the name of the township in which it would be situated. Mr. Sproatt lives outside the limits of the town of Barrie, about a mile and a half from the town, on the line between Midhurst and Barrie, which has a daily mail service. A mail bag could easily be left off at Mr. Sproatt's house. This would be of advantage to a section of the community. That was pointed out to the department by me. But I recognize that if

a post office is opened there it should be on the distinct understanding that the postmaster would be willing to accept the remuneration which the department ordinarily allows, and would not encourage any demand for more pay. Upon that understanding, I would urge the hon. Postmaster General to grant the request.


Haughton Lennox: My hon. friend from North Simcoe is probably correct in saying that the post office will be established in Yespra. At the same time, it would serve a number of people in the northern part of Barrie as well as many people in the township of Yespra. There is a schoolhouse in the immediate neighbourhood, and children from two or three miles around, in a thickly settled part of Yespra, would come there and be able to take the mail to the people in the evening. In what my hon. friend says as to the remuneration of the postmaster, I am not very much concerned. I presume that it would not be on the basis of percentage if the revenue is exceedingly small, but that the hon. Postmaster General would make it on as generous a basis as those spoken of to-night, where the revenue is only $30 or $40, while the remuneration is $20. If the hon. the Postmaster General will take the matter into consideration and establish a post office, I am sure there will be no difficulty on the score of remuneration. Mr. Sproat is a supporter of the Liberal party, and I have no doubt will be very reasonable in his views and is prepared to accept what is fair under the circumstances.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This case seems to be very well supported on both sides, and I am glad to find there is something on which both sides can agree. I cannot promise anything further than that the matter will receive careful consideration.


Haughton Lennox: There will be no extra expense involved because the postmasters are paid according to the revenue.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: How will it be served ?


Haughton Lennox: By the same carrier as now brings the mails. You would have to give him some nominal remuneration.


Mr. LEFURGEY.: The remarks of my hon. friend from West Prince concerning the mail delivery at Charlottetown were very timely and I did not hear the hon. the Postmaster General give any good reason why the city of Charlottetown should be without letter-carriers. I should like to know on what principle he grants the different towns these letter-carriers. I find that there are towns in Ontario with much smaller population which have the advantage of this service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Where are they ?
Mr. McCarthy.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: There is the town of Barrie, with a population of about 6,000 and a revenue of some $9,000, while Charlottetown has over 13,000 population and a revenue of over $17,600. I cannot see why Charlottetown should not be served as well as some of the smaller towns in Ontario.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. member for West Prince brought the matter up earlier in the evening and I then gave my views on the subject and I have nothing to add to what I then said.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I do not consider that the hon. minister gave any very good answer for my hon. friend from West Prince. He said that the matter was under consideration at one time, but nothing was done. That was not laying down the principle on which he gives letter-carriers to the different towns throughout the Dominion. There must be some principle, either on the basis of population or revenue.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: As regards the town of Barrie, I am told that some twenty years ago a letter-carrier was appointed for that place by the late Conservative government. I do not know why they slighted Charlottetown. Perhaps my hon. friend could find that out. I myself did not establish the system at Barrie, but have not disturbed it. My impression is that it was to meet some special case, and I only learned by accident that there was a letter-carrier there.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: We are not dealing with the past, but the future, I would like to know why the hon. gentleman himself neglected Charlottetown as he has done for the last seven years. The people there deserve equal treatment witli the people of Ontario and the rest of the Dominion, and I should like to know what the hon. minister proposes to do in the future.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When the city of Charlottetown requests the department to establish a letter-carrier system or do anything else in connection with the mail service, that application will receive careful consideration.


Alfred Alexander Lefurgey: I am very glad that I have at last got the principle upon which the minister conducts the business of his department. You have simply to make application and you will get what you apply for.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Ask and you shall receive.
Mr. LEFURGEYL There is just one other matter to which I wish to refer. That is the case of Kelley's Cross. I pointed out, last night that the people in that locality were at a great disadvantage. It takes from twenty-four to thirty-six hours to carry their mails a distance of eighteen miles.

While Kelley's Cross gave a revenue of 1)167.25, and the postmaster there was paid $24, as the hon. minister pointed out last night, he left out of consideration the fact that there are four other post offices, whose revenue should have been taken into account, and among those five post offices the revenue amounts to .$246, and the expenses to $100, leaving a balance of $146 to the good. From Kelley's Cross to New Wiltshire, the amount of $125 which the hon. minister gave us last year, was for the carrying of the mails between these two places and taking in also Elm Yale and Bookval. What the people want is to have the mails carried from New Wiltshire to the railway station, which is only a matter of some three quarters of a mile and costs $35. So that the expense of the service would simply be doubling the $35 and not doubling the $125.
Mail service, $2,382,850.


Edward Frederick Clarke: What does that include?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That includes the land service, amounts paid to contractors by land, rail service, courier and on foot.


Richard Blain: May I ask if the same form of contract for mail carriers in rural districts is in use now was in use under the former administration ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The deputy informs me that it is very much the same. There have been some slight changes.


Richard Blain: Would the minister kindly tell us what those changes are ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I could not without comparison of the two contracts. The deputy tells me that some vagueness was removed.


Richard Blain: I am informed that a percentage was taken off


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I know what the hon. gentleman refers to.


Richard Blain: Then, would the hon. gentleman be good enough to give us the information ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know if we could say it was taken off, unless you count it as being added in the first instance. Contractors leave one per cent of the contract price in the hands of the government as an insurance fund. It frequently happens that contractors break down or fail to perform their contract or otherwise refuse, and, in order to have our accounts so that we can depend upon them, we have this special fund. Just as we have another fund for the insurance of the fidelity of the staff. We have a numerous staff, and, in order to save them being obliged to apply to their friends for bonds or to go to guarantee companies there is a small
charge against them, and that is put into the fund. The fund is made up from these two sources, contributions are on the assessment system.


Richard Blain: Does that apply to country carriers ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, it is advertised.


Richard Blain: Is this in place of the sureties that were asked for formerly ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, that is an assurance not only upon the contractor, but also upon his surety.


Richard Blain: Then, if the country mail-carrier was to receive $125 per year for carrying mail under the former administva-tion, he was paid the full amount quarterly. But under the present administration, a percentage is taken off ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, that is not correct.


Richard Blain: Then, will the minister please explain ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When a service is let it is set forth in the advertisement that one per cent of the contract will be retained by the department for the purpose I have named. That one per cent becomes the property of the Crown and goes into this fund. The contractor takes that into consideration when he makes up his tender.


Edward Hackett: When the mails are carried across the straits and landed on Prince Edward Island what facilities are there for carrying them to their destination? Does the hon. minister intend to do in the future what he has done in the past and allow the mails to remain at Cape Traverse or Georgetown for hours waiting for the regular train.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The mails are conveyed by train from Cane Traverse and Georgetown-the train goes down to the dock.


Edward Hackett: Last year, the mails were delayed for hours at Georgetown, Summer-side and Cape Traverse, because the government would not pay for a train to carry them.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is all over now, that is all settled.


Edward Hackett: Very well, I do not wish to renew it. But the member for King's (Mr. Hughes) speaking on Friday night said:
I think that the ministers, and particularly the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, has information that will enable him to place the winter steamers on the route that will give the people of Prince Edward Island the best service. And I believe that next year, and for the years to come, there will be no great cause * for complaint.

Now, I would like to ask the minister vvliat information the hon. member for King's had in connection with this matter ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I presume the hon. member for King's made the statement on the information he received from the Minister of Marine and Fisheries iHon. Mr. Prefontaine), and as the lion. Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not here I cannot ascertain the facts. If the hon. member (Mr. Hackett) will leave the question in my hands, I will get him the information.


Richard Blain: On the question we were discussing before the hon. member for West Prince (Mr. Hackett) rose, I wish to ask one other question. Do I understand the hon. minister to say that when he puts an advertisement in the newspapers calling for tenders for the carrying of the mail between the two points, he states in that advertisement that one per cent will be deducted ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not the practice to advertise all the specifications but to deposit a copy with the postmaster and at other places for the convenience of contemplating tenderers, and the advertisement informs the public where the form of contract may be seen. If the would-be-tenderer goes to the post office as he would have to do to get a form of tender he would have an opportunity of seeing the form of contract. I do not know that it is stated in the tender, but the tenderer lias an opportunity of knowing the facts.


Richard Blain: Do I understand the Postmaster General to say that, notwithstanding the deducting of one per cent the maii-carrier has still to give bonds for the performance of his contract the same as before V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I stated that.


Richard Blain: Then, I do not quite understand what the one per cent is for.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: To insure the surety as well as the contractor.


Richard Blain: For illustration, here is a man who carried the mail between two points ten miles apart for the former administration. When he signed the contract he was asked to give bonds for the carrying out of the contract. The bondsmen were his securities to the government. Under the new arrangement the mail-carrier is asked to pay one per cent of the contract price, and he still has to give the same bonds to the government. The fact is that the mail-carrier is made to pay and is not relieved at all of the amount of bonds he has to give for the performance of his contract. Now, what position would the mail-carrier have to take in order that the department might receive from this fund some advantage ?
Would he have to be an absconder, or be a man who did not fulfil his contract ? What wrong would he have to commit in order that something would be paid out of the fund that has accumulated under the one per cent deduction ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the mail contractor should, for any reason, cease to perform his contract and there was a difficulty in securing its performance by the sureties, the department would proceed to get the service performed in some other way, and if there was any loss, then it would have recourse to this fund to make good the loss.


Richard Blain: And in the contract that he signs, it is stated at one per cent ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


Edward Frederick Clarke: I want to draw the attention of the minister to a statement that appeared in the Toronto ' Star ' some time ago respecting the method that was to be adopted by the department in furnishing supplies for the post office. The Toronto ' Star ' is a paper very friendly to the hon. gentleman. Under the big heading ' Current wages and union hours-the stipulations for all who furnish post office supplies,' I find this item, dated Ottawa, August 28 :
Hon. William Mulock has decided that all men or firms furnishing supplies of all kinds to the Post Office Department must pay the current rate of wages to their employees and adopt the union hours of labour. This applies to goods whether sold under contract or not. At present the regulations apply only to contracts, but the principle has now been extended so as to become operative in the case of all who are on the patronage list of the department. Hereafter all persons who sell goods to the Post Office Department will have to make a sworn declaration that they have complied with the new regulation before they will receive payment.
I propose, when this matter is brought up further, to ask the hon. gentleman for a copy of the sworn declaration referred to, and also for an explanation as to what is meant by this despatch, whether it is correct or not, and if this regulation is well enforced.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman will let me have the article, I will see that the Information is obtained, and will produce a copy of the affidavit.


Edward Frederick Clarke: And the names of those who are on the patronage list ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I may be able to give that information as well, hut I will not make any promise.


Samuel Barker: I understand the hon. gentleman is willing, provided that these items ' Miscellaneous and Yukon Territory ' are allowed to pass, that when his estimates come up again the subjects may he fully gone into and discussed.


Edward Hackett: 


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, everything in my department, inside and outside, may be discussed.


Richard Blain: Would the minister state what that fund has amounted to arising from the deduction of one per cent for mail-carriers ? How much has been paid out of it since it was created ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I will have to get that information for the hon. gentleman.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is understood that on all these items we are passing now, one-fifth has been already passed, so we are voting now in all these cases the other four-fifths.


Samuel Barker: Does that apply to the Yukon territory item ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: All that is embraced in item 239.
Some resolutions reported.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) moved the adjournment of the House.


Samuel Barker: What will be the business taken up at the next sitting ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The Minister of Railways will invite the House to resume consideration of his Bill respecting the Railway Commission. If we reach supply, the Postmaster General will continue his estimates, to be followed by the Department of the Interior.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 1.15 a.m., Tuesday.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 7, 1903.