1903-10-21

[Stage Direction]
The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon* Sir Wilfrid I.aurier) moved that the House go into Committee of the Whole to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolutions :
Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: Resolved, that it is expedient to approve, ratify, and confirm the agreement made on the 19-th of October, 1903, between the Quebec Bridge and Railway Company, represented by the Hon. Simon Napoleon Parent, the president thereof, and Hi-s Majesty the King, represented by the Honourable William Stevens Fielding, acting Minister of Railways and Canals, a copy of Which agreement is hereto annexed :-
Agreement made this Nineteenth Day of October,
in the Year of Our Lord one Thousand Nine Hundred and Three.
Between
The Quebec Bridge and Railway Company, a corporation duly incorporated and organized under the laws of the Dominion of Canada, having its chief place of business in the said city of Quebec, and herein acting and represented by the Honourable Simon Napoleon Parent, president, duly and specially authorized for the purposes hereof under a resolution passed at a meeting of the board of directors of the said company on the first day of October, 1903, a copy of which said resolution remains annexed to the original of these presents, and is signed by the parties hereto, in order to identify the same (hereinafter called the company) of the one part ;
And His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, acting in respect of the Dominion of Canada, herein represented and acting by the Honourable William Stevens Fielding, His Majesty's acting Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada (hereinafter called the government) of the other part.
Whereas the company has by several Acts of the parliament of Canada been duly authorized and empowered to lay out, construct, maintain, work, manage and use a railway bridge, with the necessary approaches, over the St. Lawrence river at or near the city of Quebec, and also to lay out, construct and operate the following lines of railway :-
(a.) Commencing at or near the northern terminus of the bridge of the company at a point in the parish of St. Foye, in the county of Quebec, thence easterly following the general line of the St. Lawrence river to the city of Quebec ;
(b.) iComtmencing at a point at or near the southern terminus of the said bridge, in the county of L6vis, to a point at or near the intersection of the Grand Trunk Railway with the Intercolonial Railway at Chaudiere curve, in the county of Levis; or to some point on the Grand Trunk Railway, or on the Intercolonial Railway, near such point of intersection ;
And whereas it is the intention of the company to provide by the construction of the said bridge and works for the conveyance of traffic across the River St. Lawrence at or near the city of Quebec, and to provide terminal and other facilities for the interchange of traffic between the railways which are or may be hereafter constructed near the said bridge upon the north and south sides of the said river, and which may be desirous of making use of such facilities;
And whereas the company has been duly organized and has issued two hundred thousand dollars ($209,000) of its authorized capital stock of one million dollars ($1,000,000), upon which the shareholders have paid the sunt of $65,585.70;
And whereas the government of the province of Quebec has granted a subsidy to aid in the construction of the said works to the amount of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000) and has paid the whole amount thereof ;

And whereas the municipality of the city of Quebec has granted a subsidy to aid in the construction of the said bridge to the amount of three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000) and has paid the whole amount thereof ;
And whereas the government has granted a subsidy towards the construction of the said bridge to an amount not exceeding one millien dollars ($1,000,000) and has paid to the company on account of the said subsidy the sum of three hundred and seventy-four thousand three hundred and fifty-three dollars ($374,353),.
And whereas the substructure and approaches of the said bridges have been completed, and a portion of the superstructure has been constructed ;
And whereas the company has so far expended upon said works the sum of $914,862, and is indebted in respect of the same work in the sum of $779,550, including at par value bonds to the extent of $472,000, upon which was realized the sum of $283,270;
And whereas the amount necessary to complete the said bridge and the said lines of railway and to provide the necessary terminal and other facilities, as well as to pay off the aforesaid amount of the present indebtedness of the company, ie estimated at the sum of $6,866,882 ;
And whereas the company is unable to proceed with' the said work without further assistance from the government and it has applied to the government for such assistance, which the government has agreed to grant, in the manner and form and upon the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth and declared ;
Now, this agreement witnesseth that in pursuance of the said agreement and for the considerations herein appearing,
The said company and the government mutually covenant, promise and agree to and with each other in manner following, that is to say:-
1.	In these presents the expression 'undertaking' shall mean and include the said bridge and approaches, the said lines of railway, and the terminal and other facilities to he constructed as aforesaid.
The expression 'the company' shall mean and include as well as the said company, their successors and assigns, and the expression 'the government' shall mean and include as well as His Majesty King Edward the Seventh, His heirs and successors.
2.	The company releases and forgoes any claim which it may have upon the government for any balance now remaining unpaid of the said subsidy of $1,000,000 so granted by the government as aforesaid, and also any other rights or claims against the government other than such as are hereinafter set forth and expressly declared.
3.	The company will forthwith arrange with the present subscribers of the capita] stock of the company that such subscribers shall surrender such stock to the company, and in lieu thereof accept paid-up stock for the amount paid by them on their shares, the company relieving them 'from further liability upon the stock so surrendered.
4.	The company will procure subscriptions for additional stock to the amount of $200,000, such new stock to he issued at a price not below par and to he immediately paid up in full, the proceeds to be applied in the first place in the payment of the discount at which the bonds of the company were issued as aforesaid, to wit, the sum of $188,721.
5.	When and sc soon as the company shall have completed all the arrangements mention- ,
ed in the two preceding clauses, and the proceeds of the said issue of $200,000 stock shall have been paid in full to the company, the company shall be at liberty to issue such bonds, debentures or other securities as hereinafter provided to an amount not exceeding $6,678,200.
6.	The said bonds, debentures' or other securities shall be issued by the company upon the credit of the company and upon the security of its undertaking and property, and upon the franchises, tolls, rents and revenues thereof, and shall form thie first charge upon the same, and shall be secured by a mortgage thereon, as hereinafter provided. They shall be issued payable in fifty years from the date thereof, and shall bear interest at the rate of three per centum per annum, payable halfyearly, and shall be issued as hereinafter provided. The proceeds of such securities shall be applied in payment of the balance of the existing obligations and indebtedness of the company, including any bonds or mortgages issued in respect thereof and not herein otherwise provided for ; in the construction and completion of the undertaking, and for the acquisition of the right of way, and other lands, which the company is authorized to acquire or expropriate for the purposes of the undertaking, and in the payment of land damages in connection therewith.
7.	The government shall guarantee the payment of the principal and interest of the bonds, debentures or other securities of the company to an amount not exceeding $6,678,200. The said bonds, debentures or other securities shall be issued as to provide for monthly payments, as far as practicable, to the company, and they shall be issued, or the proceeds thereof paid to the company, as the construction ^f the undertaking is proceeded with to the satisfaction of the government, and in such sums as the chief engineer of the government railways or such other officer as the government may appoint may certify are justified.
8.	The kind of securities to be so guaranteed and the form and denomination thereof, as well as the time and manner of their issue and the form and manner of guarantee, shall be subject to the approval of the Governor in Council.
9.	The mortgage to secure such securities shall be made to a trustee or trustees approved by the Governor in Council, and the form and terms of the mortgage shall he subject to the like approval.
10.	All moneys paid by the government under the said guarantee shall be held to be paid in discharge of the liability of the government, but not in discharge of^ the liability of the company under the securities guaranteed or under the mortgage securing them, and the moneys so paid shall be held to be still secured by the said securities and mortgage, and the government shall he subrogated in all the rights of the holders of the securities, the interest upon or the principal of which has been paid by the government, and the government shall, in respect of all moneys so paid, be in all respects in the position of security holders in respect of whose securities default has been made in payment to the extent of the moneys paid by the government.
11.	The company shall not create or issue any further stock, shares, bonds or interests in the company or its undertaking other than and except as provided for by and in these presents.

12.	The plans and specifications for all the works of the undertaking shall be submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council before any work is constructed thereunder.
13^ The continuation of the work of constructing the said undertaking shall be proceeded with so soon as the plans thereof are submitted to and approved by the Governor in Council, and the said undertaking shall be completed not later than the first day of December, 1906.
14.	Upon the execution of this agreement, the Governor in Council shall have the right to appoint three directors of the company, the number of directors to be elected by the shareholders of the company being limited to eight, and the directors so appointed and elected shall constitute the board of directors of the company. The directors appointed by the Governor in Council need not be possessed of the qualifications required in the case of elected directors. They shall be entitled as such directors to the same fees or allowances from the company as are paid or allowed to the other directors.
15.	The Governor in Council shall fix the tolls and further shall make regulations with regard to the use of the undertaking so as to secure the right to the use and enjoyment thereof to all railway companies which may desire to connect therewith, upon fair and equal terms, without preference to one railway over another.
16.	From and after the first day of December, 1906, or the date of the completion of the undertaking, whichever shall first happen, the company shall, out of the net income of the undertaking, that is to say, after payment out of the income of the expense of operation and other charges for maintenance and repairs and for renewals of the said undertaking, or any part or parts thereof, and of the interest upon the bonded indebtedness, annually pay to the government for the purpose of forming a sinking fund for the redemption of the bonded indebtedness of the company a sum equal to one-half of one per cent of the total amount of such bonded indebtedness.
17.	If in any year or years the net income of the undertaking is insufficient to pay the amount required for the said sinking fund, the net income of any subsequent year or years shall be applied in the first place in reduction or payment of such deficiency, together with interest at the rate of three per centum, per annum.
18.	The company agrees that the government may exercise, and the government hereby reserves the right to take over the whole of the undertaking, assets, property and franchises of the company, at any time, on paying the shareholders the amount of their stock at the par value thereof, not exceeding the amount of $265,585.70, with simple interest at five per centum per annum upon such amount as from the date or dates of the payment or payments upon the original or any substituted stock, such interest, however, to be charged with and reduced by the amount of the dividends (if any) which shall have accrued and been paid to the said shareholders respectively, so that no more interest than five per centum per annum, after deducting all dividends, shall in any case be paid to the said shareholders. The government, in addition to interest ascertained in manner aforesaid, shall pay to the shareholders a premium of ten p^r centum upon the par value of the fully paid shares. Such right to


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: take over the undertaking may be exercised at any time by the government upon giving one month's notice to the company, which shall thereupon, and upon payment by the government to the shareholders aforesaid, grant, surrender and release to the government all their right, title and interest in and to the said undertaking and to the fVanchises- and all other assets and property of the company of whatsoever nature or kind, subject to the payment of such obligations of the Company as may have been contracted with the consent and approval of the government, if any, for construction, operation and maintenance, and to the said bonded indebtedness, which the government shall thereupon assume and pay, according to the terms of the said bonds or other securities and of the mortgage securing the same.
19.	In the event of the government exercising the said right to take over the undertaking, assets, property and franchises of the company as aforesaid, the provisions contained in the following clauses, numbers 20 to 24, shall take effect and come into operation from and after the date of such acquisition.
20.	For the purpose of the sinking fund for the redemption of the bonded indebtedness, a like sum as is in and by clause 16 hereof provided to be paid for such purposes by the company to the government shall be annually set aside by the government out of the net income of the undertaking, that is to say, after payment out of the income of the expenses of operation and other charges for maintenance, repairs and for renewals or improvements upon and additions to the said undertaking and any part or parts thereof, and of the interest upon the bonded indebtedness and of interest calculated at the rate of three per cent per annum on all moneys paid by the government, in accordance with the provisions of clause 18, for the acquisition of the undertaking, and of interest at the same rate on any other liability or expenditure incurred or made by the government in connection with the undertaking.
21.	The government will, subject to the provision next hereinafter contained, annually pay to the government of the province of Quebec and to the corporation of the city of Quebec, respectively, a proportion of the balance of the net income after providing for the said charges, interest and expenses and the amount to be set aside for the sinking fund as aforesaid, such proportion being based upon the amount paid or contributed as a subsidy by each of the three parties, namely: the Dominion government, $374,353; the government of the province of Quebec, $250,000, and the city of Quebec, $300,000; not exceeding, however, as regards the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec, respectively, the sum of $7,500 and $9,000, being the amount of interest calculated at the rate of three per centum per annum on the said sum of $250,000 and $300,000.
22.	If in any year or years subsequent to the acquisition of the undertaking by the government the income of the undertaking shall be insufficient to meet the charges and expenses and the provision for the sinking fund, more particularly set forth in clause 20 hereof, the net income of any subsequent year or years, after providing for the said charges, interest and expenses and the amount to be set aside for the sinking fund, shall be applied in reduction or payment of the amount of such deficiency before any such division of the net income and payment of part thereof to the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec, res-

pectively, as provided for by the last preceding clause, is made.
23.	If at any time, and with or without notice, the government shall pay or cause to be paid to the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Quebec, or either of them, the amount of their respective subsidies of $250,000, and $300,000, all payments, whether in respect of capital or income, to be made under the foregoing provisions to the said government of the province of Quebec or the city of Quebec, -respectively, shall as and from that time absolii-tely cease and determine.
24.	Notwithstanding anything contained in the five next preceding olauses, the undertairing, assets, property and franchises of the company shall at all times be and remain the absolute property of the government, and the sole right of control and management shall be and continue absolutely vested in the government.
25.	This agreement shall not come into force or effect unless and until it has been approved, ratified and confirmed by the parliament oi Canada.
In testimony whereof, the said parties have hereunto set their hands and seals the day anil 5 ear first herein written.
(.Sgd.) W. S. FIELDING.
(Sgd.) S. N. PARENT.
Signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of O. E. Tasehereau.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: Before the Orders of the Day are called, I was going to give to the House a telegram I received yesterday from Mr. Sifton in respect to the award of the Alaska Boundary Convention. I may say that subsequently during the day His Excellency received from the Colonial Office a similar telegram. It reads as follows :
London, October 20, 1903.
Laurier.
Ottawa.
Award signed to day by chief justice and Commissioners Root, Lodge and Turner, being under treaty binding majority. Line commences at Cape Muzorr, goes directly to southern entrance of channel between Wales and Sitklan Islands, proceeding northward between said islands, to Portland channel; thence along the middle of Portland channel to its head; from there line formed by going from peak to peak of mountains, distance from tidal water varying from ten to thirty miles, speaking generally. When opposite Thomas Bay, line stops undefined from there to point about fifteen miles north of head of Taku inlet; thence follows peaks of mountains about north-westward to White Pass, follows summits of White and Chilcoot Passes, thence by peaks of mountains to Mount Fairweath'w. passes close to police post situated near Klehini river. On this course, the line will be from eight to twenty miles north of the provisional boundary line; from Fairweather a short distance northward and then on a fairly direct course to the rear of Yakutat Bay, thence from peak to peak by somewhat circuitous route to Mount St. Elias. Marked map follows to-morrow.
(Sgd.) SIFTON.
This telegram would not give so much information as to the character of the boundary which is thus settled by the award of ' 455
the boundary. But I have here two maps which may perhaps interest the House, and which give the boundary, one showing accurately the section of Portland Channel and the other the general outline of the boundary decided. These maps I lay on the Table of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: I presume that there are some documents in connection with the Alaskan boundary which cau be brought down at once, and there are some others with respect to which there may be some difficulty of that nature. I would suggest to; my right lion, friend that those about which there is no difficulty should be brought down at once, and that the others should be brought down as soon as possible.
I imagine there can be no difficulty in bringing down this forenoon, perhaps, a certain number ofi the documents.



USE OF MAIL BAGS.

Mr.   I@: Before the Orders of the Day are called, there is another matter I would like to bring to your attention, and that is a question which has been raised during the last two or three days as to the use by members of certain rooms and corridors of this House. I would like to say that I think it is desirable, even at this late stage of the session, to have a statement made as to the uses to which the different rooms of this House are applied. It is a question which has some interest to myself on account of the extremely inadequate accommodation which is afforded for the work I am compelled to do from time to time. I have been under the impression that we could use the corridors, but judging from events that have taken place recently there appears to be some rule which prohibits using even the corridors opposite the small apartments! in .which we are allowed to carry on our work. I think it is extremely desirable that we should know exactly to what uses the rooms are put, and what authority you propose to exercise over members of the House in respect to documents brought into this House ; because as late as this morning I understand that certain parcels brought to this House for the purpose of -being piled up in room No. 0, to the great inconvenience of members there, and for the reason that there was no other place to put them, have been ordered away by your authority from the precincts of the House. Under these conditions I think it is extremely desirable that we should know a little of the use to which the different rooms in the House are put, and of the rights which we have as members of this parliament to use those rooms. I have seen during the past session and during the present session a room downstairs opposite the telephone room, which does not seem to be occupied by any person, except that members on the other side of the House have used it during the past session for the distribution of literature, 1



know that because I have seen them doing it myself. I know something about the use which has been made of other apartments in this House for that purpose. While that has been going on, bags containing a certain amount of speeches and other documents which were required to be sent out by members on this side of the House for the purpose of affording desirable information to the public have been piled up in the corridors, not in corridors opposite rooms used by hon. gentlemen 011 the other side of the House, but an the corridors opposite rooms more particularly used by gentlemen on this side of the House, opposite my own room, opposite the room of my hon. friend from Heeds and Grenville (Mr. Taylor), the whip of the Liberal-Conservative party, opposite room No. 6. Now, no objection has been taken to this for many weeks, and I was not aware that any hon. gentleman in this House had been inconvenienced by that; and if it had been suggested in the House that any gentleman on the other side of the House objected to it or was inconvenienced by it, I am sure I would have been very glad to pile a portion of those bags up in my own room, small as it is, littered up as it is, for the purpose of removing that inconvenience. I am sure that would have been done by my hon. friend from Leeds and Grenville, who is also cooped up in a very small room, absolutely insufficient for his purpose. I am sure that every hon. gentleman on this side of the House would have been willing that the small apartment which we occupy known as No. 6 should also have been piled up by these bags rather than that any hon. gentleman on the other side, and particularly the Postmaster General, should have been inconvenienced in any way by these bags being placed in the corridors.
That is one thing, but it is another thing for the Speaker of this House or for any minister of the Crown to undertake to order away from the precincts of this House bags which are sent here to the address of a member of this House ; and I for my part wish to say that I cannot, until I am better advised, recognize your authority Sir, or the authority of any man sitting in that Chair-because my remarks are not at all personal to yourself-(he authority of any man occupying your chair, to take a course of that kind with regard to documents sent to a member of this House in the House of Commons. I recognize fully your right to see that good order is kept in the corridors, and I have already said that if you or any other gentleman in this House objects to the corridors being used for that purpose, these bags can be piled in my own room, or in a small number of apartments that are allotted to members on this side of the House. But I want to know at the same time something about the uses to which other rooms in this House are applied at present, and which so far as I am concerned * Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
do not seem to be occupied for any useful purpose, and might be occupied for that very purpose. It is not dignified for any Minister of the Crown to undertake to place difficulties in the way of sending out literature from this side of the House to people in this country ; it is not a very dignified part for even a private member to undertake to play, and I am glad to say that no private member of this House, so far as I am aware, or at least very few, have raised any question about this ; and it has been reserved for a minister of the Crown, who, it is said, aspires to the leadership of the great Liberal party of this country, to raise a question about so petty a matter as that. I do not know where that hon. gentleman is at present. I do not see him in his seat. We have a great many apartments in the Commons which are reserved for the use of members of the House of Commons, and if there is to be difficulty about matters of this kind, I think it will be desirable for us to ascertain whether these apartments are at the present time used for the wisest purpose. There are sleeping apartments provided for certain officials of the House of parliament, and if we are so crowded that it is impossible to give members on this side of the House an opportunity to arrange literature for distribution throughout the country, literature which is sent out by both political parties, then I think it may be desirable to inquire whether we could not better carry on the affairs of the country by using these apartments, which are practically dwellings at the present time, for some other purpose than that to which they are now put.
I have not been inclined to complain about my own inadequate accommodation. I have been content to do as I have done over and over again, go out into the corridor to hold conferences with gentlemen, by reason of the fact that my office was so small and was so littered up. I have had to sit in my office and have my secretary neglect his work because, when I desired to have private conferences, he had to go out and cool his heels in the corridors perhaps for an hour or even an hour and a half at a time, to the great neglect of his work which was going on. I have not said anything about this, I have been content to endure it; but if we are to have a tempest in a teapot created by the Postmaster General because certain bags have been piled up in these corridors opposite my own room and opposite the room of the Liberal-Conservative whip, I think it is high time that we should have from you Sir, and I would like to have it to-day, a statement of the use to which every room in this House is applied at the present time, and a consideration as to whether it is not possible to give to gentlemen in this House who have important duties to transact, a little more accommodation than they have at present.

We have had bags stored in these corridors all ready for mailing since the 25th of September, and the post office service of this country has been unable to take charge of them or to deal with them. I want to point out that the blocking up of the corridors, if they have been blocked up, is largely due to the fact that the post office service has not been able to take care of these bags which have been prepared for the mails. I assume that the post office has not been able to do so. My hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) suggests that it is not on account of inability but on account of unwillingness. I do not doubt that, but I make no suggestion of that kind. This is now the 21st of October and there are bags which have been ready for mailing since the 25th of September as I am informed by those who have charge of those bags. There has not been any very enormous quantity. I will venture to say that the speeches of my right hon. friend the leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) and of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Fielding) in regard to the transcontinental question have been sent out to the people in greater quantities than the documents which are to be sent out from the bags piled up in the corridors of this House. It is very well known that a very large number of the speeches to which I have referred have been, sent out.
Another question to which I would like, to have an answer from the government *is this :	Is the government prepared to
say that rooms or places in departmental buildings or in buildings hired and paid for by this country have not been made use of during the present session or during past sessions for the purpose of distributing literature for the government campaign. The right hon. gentleman may be prepared or he may not be prepared to make a statement in regard to that. All I have to say is that if he will grant an inquiry into the subject I venture to think that I will be able to bring to his attention certain facts in regard to it that he may not be aware of at the present time and I think if there is any question of abuse of privileges an inquiry such as I have suggested would lead the right hon. gentleman to the conclusion that there are very much greater irregularities in con-nectioin with these matters than any irregularity which might be occasioned by the piling of certain bags in the corridors of this House. I thought it right to bring this matter to your attention, Mr. Speaker, because, without any desire to be disrespectful or to pass beyond the bounds of the most absolute courtesy towards yourself, it seems to me that it is beyond your jurisdiction and beyond your power, occupying even the high position which you do occupy, to direct that parcels addressed by hon. gentlemen in this House of Commons shall be removed from the premises or the grounds of parliament and shall not be delivered to the persons for whom they are intended. I have stated to 455J
you what I have heard in regard to that and what has been my information. I do not know whether this information be correct or not, but. I thought it right to bring it to your attention. I trust I have been misinformed in regard to it. But, in saying what I have in regard to this matter, I of course recognize your right as Speaker of the House to preserve order in the House and in the corridors thereof. I would like to know also how it is that the documents to which I have referred are delayed so long in the corridors. They have been there for weeks ready for mailing and if they have not been mailed, I would like to know what disposition is at present made of the rooms which are at present available for the use of members of the House of Commons and to inquire whether there is not some room which might be available in view of the fact that in the lower part of this building there are rooms which are not used for any purpose in connection with the business of this House. Therefore, as I presume that my remarks have exceeded the measure which would be permitted to me in speaking merely on the Orders of the Day, I will conclude my remarks by moving that the House do now adjourn.


The PRIME MINISTER (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier).: My hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) has brought up a motion which, I think, is very small in itself and he has spoken on it in a most unfortunate manner and in a manner which I think is unworthy of himself. The members of this House have to submit to some inconveniences. It is a pity but I do not see that this condition can be remedied. It is unfortunate that every member has not room enough in which to transact his business. It is to be regretted that the leader of the opposition has very small quarters. I can sympathize with my hon. friend in this respect. I occupied those quarters before he did but I never complained that they were too small. These rooms were occupied at one time by a man who is at least the equal of my hon. friend or of any of us-Mr. Blake, and Mr. Blake never made the smallest complaint about them. I know the quarters are very small and I know that they are inconvenient because I occupied them for a very long time. But, I occupy quarters today that are not very much larger in space. However, I think there are some things that could receive the attention of the House rather than such matters as these. Have an investigation. It is a small proposition on the part of my hon. friend to call upon the government to have an investigation as to how some of the rooms downstairs are occupied.


Robert Laird Borden: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I did not ask for any investigation in regard to that matter. I said that great irregularities might be proved in respect to the departmental buildings upon an investigation being held.


The PRIME MINISTER.: I will accept the correction. It is not much larger than the statement I have made. I think our time is too precious at this stage of the session to think of having an inquiry of that kind. If, at the opening of next session it is thought advisable to have a proper distribution of the rooms of the House I am sure my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Sutherland) and his honour the Speaker who have charge of that matter will he only too glad to look into the matter and give as much room as possible to every member of this House. But all this trouble has arisen because of a condition of things which was brought to the attention of the House a few days ago. True it is for many years past, so long as parliament has been a parliament, members have distributed the literature of then-own party and so long as parliament will be a parliament they will continue to do so, but this procedure which has been normal for some years, has taken on proportions which involve an abuse if not a violation of the law. The whole trouble has come from the fact that a certain publisher in the city of Montreal to whom the privileges of the post office are extended and who gets certain bags for the distribution of his papers, instead of using the bags for the distribution of his papers, has used them to distribute the literature of the Conservative party. Since my hon. friend has brought this matter to the attention of the House let us see what the facts are. In order that the members of the opposition might distribute their literature not at their own cost but at the cost of the country they get this publisher in Montreal to send the literature which had been prepared by the Conservative party probably in this House and printed in'the city of Montreal, in the office of a certain newspaper, to the party whip, here, not to the parties for which it was intended them to be distributed by the party whip to parties outside. So, His Majesty's mails, instead of being abused once, have been abused twice. This literature was pre- i pared. I suppose, in Ottawa, printed in Montreal, sent back to the House of Commons in Ottawa and from the House of Commons scattered all over the country. This is an abuse of the privileges of this House; it is an abuse of the postal service. The publisher of that paper was within bis right when he used the bags to circulate his own newspaper, but when he used those bags to distribute the literature of the Conservative party, thereby incommoding everybody in this House, and other newspapers throughout Canada, it was an improper use of the mail bags. I understand that in order to have free circulation through the corridors, instructions have had to be given to dispose of these bags so that members may not tumble over them. If that is all that has been done. I am at a loss to know in what way, Sir, you have infringed on the


Robert Laird Borden: rules of the House. I am at a loss to know what there was to justify my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) in using the serio-comic language in which he brought this matter to the attention of the House.


Mr. A. C. BELL (Pictou).: I am surprised that the right hon. gentleman should have chosen to use such strong language In expressing his opinion of the address of our leader, which to my mind was characterized by the greatest of moderation. The leader of the opposition used not one offensive word, when he got up in the House to assert his rights, and the rights of his followers. The right hon. gentleman has chosen to treat the matter as of extreme insignificance, and as being unworthy to be made the subject of a motion to adjourn. The Prime Minister apparently thinks that it is the business of the opposition to accept with complacency, if not with gratitude, any kind of treatment that may be meted out to them by the officers of the House, and by departmental officers, acting, I presume, under instructions. To my mind it was a very small piece of business on the part of some members of the cabinet which the right hon. gentleman leads. The right hon. gentleman has stated that some very eminent men-of whom he is not the least by any means-have used the [DOT]narrow quarters in which the leader of the opposition now has to transact his business. But the leader of the opposition did not object to being confined to these narrow quarters, although he was compelled to draw attention to the inconvenience to which lie is subjected, when he found that very rigid and strict regulation was placed upon certain portions of this building by the gentleman who directs the management of this House. The leader of the opposition lias borne the inconvenience he suffers without complaint. Now, Sir, let me point out, that we do not enjoy the franking privilege as a privilege at all, nor do we receive it as a favour from the government or from any member supporting the government. It is our right to frank letters, and we are going to insist upon exercising that right to the full. That right lias been curtailed by the action of the hon. gentleman who fills the position of Postmaster General, and who to my mind, fills it very inefficiently. Here is a gentleman who, with all the resources of his department, and with unlimited facilities for purchasing material and employing assistants, is unable to pass through the Ottawa post office more that forty or fifty bags of mail in the course of a day. We on this side of the House have had no difficulty in procuring three or four boys, who, without previous training, have been able to handle a hundred of these bags in a day, and yet the Postmaster General, the Minister of Labour, is so Inefficient, that his whole department Is unable to handle forty or fifty bags of this

mail matter in the same time. Would we not be an extraordinary opposition if we were to submit quietly to such treatment V Even if the corridors have to be occupied to a certain extent, they have not at all been crowded to such an extent, as to prevent even so big a man as the Postmaster General from making his way along without any inconvenience. It has grown to be an outrage, that these bags of mail matter have had to remain thei-e for over a month, without being despatched through the mails of this country. If the Postmaster General cannot manage the business of his department any better than he has done in this case, I would submit to the Prime Minister that he should look around for another Postmaster General, and I have no doubt that he will find oixe who can handle without the slightest tx-ouble, all the mail matter that is despatched by members of the House of Commons. I presume that one single newspaper in Montreal, the ' Star,' for instance, has handled within the past week two or three thousand bags of mail, similar to those that are now lying in the corridors. One single and private institution is able to do that in the course of its ordinary business, and yet, the Postmaster General, at headquarters in Ottawa, where the work is done under his very eyes, is not able to get this mail despatchel with promti-tude. It is most disgraceful to the Postmaster General, that I am in a position to be able to get up hei'e. and charge him to his face with beiixg so inefficient, that this mail matter which has been stamped and prepared and addressed by the members of the opposition, has had to lie liei'e for weeks without being transmitted. It is an extraordinary thing that the Postmaster General has not been able to transmit these mails fx'om Ottawa, and has not been able to procure a sufficient supply of mail bags to accommodate the newspaper press of the city of Montreal. It is an absui'd situation, which no man in the possession of his senses would have ci'eated for himself. I say that the Postmaster General is a very indiscreet man, so far as his reputation is concerned, when he seeks to immortalize himself by telling the country, that his department is unable to handle this very moderate amount of mail matter. If the Postmaster Genei'al devoted himself to the woi'k of facilitating the transmission of these mails, not one of these bags would be lying in the corridors to-day.
A man of very moderate abilities could handle the 1,700 or 1,800 bags that have come here in the course of a month-for that is the full amount, say 00 a day-and there are now 700 of these bags not delivered. We had an opinion that the purpose of the mails was to receive from the public and to deliver to its destination matter that was regularly and properly placed in the hands of the post office. Apparently that is not the purpose of the mails; in some cases, the
purpose is to delay and prevent the delivery of matter placed in the hands of the post office. The post office is a government monopoly, they have the exclusive right to transmit matter that comes regularly into the mails; we have no other person to whom to go if we want to distribute this matter, and therefore we have a right, as citizens of this country, as well as members of parliament, to demand that any matter that we put into the hands of the Postmaster General or any officer of his department should be dealt with promptly and satisfactorily to us-not to him, but to us. We perfectly understand his opinion on this subject; we know his rights and ours ; we know his duties and are going to insist that he shall perform these duties. When lie or any other man undertakes to deprive members of this House of their rights, then he must expect them to insist upon having their rights and nothing less. The whole matter is unworthy. I was not altogether surprised, from the course of the hon. gentleman who is now Postmaster General when in opposition, to find him acting in such a petty, silly, ridiculous spirit as he is doing, but' I was much surprised to-day, I was never more surprised in my life, than to find that the Prime Minister of Canada was disposed to sustain that indiscreet and foolish Postmaster General in the undertaking upon which he has entered. If the Postmaster General chooses to make it patent to all Canada and to a great part of the world outside of Canada, that he is unable to handle 1,800 bags filled with 300 or 400 pieces each of mail matter of the easiest kind, resembling newspapers in character- if he is disposed to send out information that he is not able to organize his department so as to handle that amount of mail matter in thirty days, lie lias a perfect right to do it, and I congratulate him upon the result. I think he will go down to posterity not only as the mail who devised the postage stamps and the motto of the vaster empire than has been, but will be looked upon as the vastest failure that has been as Postmaster General. That is the situation he has created for himself, that is the pillory on which he will be put and will be kept as long as he occupies a seat in this House. He has taken all this trouble out of a small desire to annoy and obstruct the proper conduct of the opposition in using their franking privilege. If the hon. gentleman wants to do that sort of thing he will get enough of it, and he may fry in it and he will fry. I want to know why it is that because the Postmaster Genei'al is either unable or unwilling to allow his officers in Ottawa to receive matter from us at a very moderate rate, to the extent of some 30,000 pieces a day, and chooses to create a glut in this building by refusing to take the matter, officials of this House should come to members of the opposition and instruct them that they are not to be

allowed to use tlie corridors to store this mail matter. It is not the fault of the opposition that that matter is in the corridors. It is the fault of the Postmaster General. We have a post office in this House of Commons, established and maintained for the use of members, aud it must be of such character and extent that it will discharge the business tendered to it by the members of this House. It must be large enough to receive every particle of mail which we may tender. If it cannot do this it is the business of the Postmaster General to find other accommodation; if he cannot find it anywhere else, he is responsible for "the fact that this mail matter is lying in the corridors, and he it is who should be censured by the Speaker or the officers of the Speaker for having it there, not we. We are not at all anxious to have it about the corridors; we are anxious to get it out and have used every means in our power to get it out, but we have been unable to do so because the department of the hon. Postmaster General is either unable or un-willilng to take' it. It 'is a situation which is simply intolerable, and I think it is as well that the right hon. gentleman should understand that the members of the opposition are not going to be lectured in the manner in which he talked this morning. The right hon. gentleman may have his own opinion about the gravity of this subject, an'd he may choose to regard it as a very small matter, but we want him to understand that an invasion of the privilege of any British subject is a thing that will not be permitted. The invasion of the rights of the House of Commons, of the men who are sent here to discharge the business of the country, or the obstruction of these gentlemen in the discharge of anything that is their right and duty is something which we are not disposed to stand, and we will not be willing to allow this House to adjourn until this, matter is satisfactorily settled. We want to have a distinct and clear understanding as to what our rights are ; we want to get every jot and tittle of our rights, and we do not want it as a favour from any man. We simply say that we have a right to the franking privilege and we want to be permitted to use it. If the Postmaster General cannot manage the mail service of this country so as to be able to handle this matter, we will want the right hon. the Premier to get another Postmaster General, because it is his business as Premier to have the work of that department carried out in a satisfactory manner, and he is responsible if the gentleman occupying that position under him is not able to discharge the duties of that department. I might call the attention of my right hon. friend to this further fact : This is not a question merely for to-day or for this opposition ; it is a question for all time in Canada and for all oppositions that may sit in this House for all time. If we have these Mr. BELL.
rights we must exercise them. If when the right hon. gentleman was in opposition he had been refused this privilege I have too much respect for him to believe that he would not have protested. We have our rights and we do not want to be hindered in these rights; we are now asserting these rights as much for the men who will follow us as for ourselves, because we realize that the object of the Postmaster General is to cause us petty annoyance, and that his efforts must fail in causing us anything more than a mere temporary -inconvenience. But it is a question of privilege and of right, and we are speaking for the men who may sit here at any time as an opposition. We have our rights and are determined to assert them, not only for ourselves but for the men who in time to come may exercise these rights.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL (Hon. Sir William Mulock).: I regret not having been in the chamber at the commencement of this discussion, and perhaps owing to my absence I may not deal with some points, if any have been made, which I did not hear. However, I have had the honour of listening to the bon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell), who has in this instance departed from his usual course of addressing the House with a certain measure of moderation and dignity. I on this occasion regret to find that lie has departed from that role, and has, as all gentlemen do who are trying to uphold a bad case, indulged in rather violent and *abusive language. Without dwelling upon the personal attack which he makes upon me or discussing the question of whether or not the general administration of the Post Office Department is satisfactory to the public, leaving that question to be determined by the public itself, I will give to the House the bare facts of the case without endeavouring to evade or to cloud the issue. This is not a question of the franking privilege at all, although that subject may fairly come up for consideration in view of the events that have taken place. Let me tell you frankly and exactly how the matter came to my attention and how the situation has grown to what it is. On Saturday last I received a communication from a leading publisher of the city of Montreal-not the Montreal ' Star,' but another leading journal 'in that city-complaining that his house had not been furnished, according to the usual custom, with bags for carrying their papers to the post office. I might say that the department, in order to accommodate newspaper publishers, inaugurated the practice of allowing them to receive from the post office, from time to time, sufficient mail sacks in which to bag their papers for transmission to the post office.


Mr. HUGHES (Victoria).: Is that custom not for the purposes of accommodating, not the newspapers, but the post office author-

ities, by saving them the expense of sorting these mails ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Probably there are mutual advantages. It is doubtless for mutual convenience, and may have the advantage suggested by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes), but it also has the corresponding advantage of enabling the publishers to send their mails to the post office at the latest moment, and it is a great boon to newspaper publishers to have as much time as possible to get out their issue before the outgoing trains. If, however, as the hon. member for North Victoria suggests, this is no advantage to the newspapers, I do not understand what grievance the ' Star ' newspaper may have, if it does not enjoy that privilege to-day. But to return to the history of the situation. On Saturday last I received the communication to which I have alluded. I had no idea then that any difficulty of this kind would occur. My attention had been called to the accumulation of bags of this kind in the corridors, and in private conversation 1 expressed my opinion.


Mr. CLARKE.: Pretty vigorously.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, but it was a private conversation with a leading gentleman on the other side, and the matter then absolutely escaped my attention until I received the communication to which I have alluded. In desirinig that this work should proceed rapidly, and that no ground for complaint should exist, either here or at Montreal, through the department failing to issue bags to the publishers in sufficient quantities, I at once inquired into the cause of the congestion. I learned that the Montreal ' Star ' had procured from the post office at Montreal an unusually large number of mail sacks, and had used them, not for the purpose for which they were issued, namely, the carryinig of the newspapers to the station, but to pack up this literature to be transmitted from the post office at Montreal to the Whip of the opposition at Ottawa, and we found bags full of mail matter accumulating at different places throughout the city. I at once caused an inquiry to be made at the post office in the House of Commons to ascertain why they had not been sending away this literature and getting these bags liberated. The answer I received was that the postmaster at Ottawa had refused to receive any more at the city post office. The course adopted for the transmission of the mails from the House is to send them to the city post office, where they are shipped by cars to the various stations and taken away for distribution throughout the country by the various postal cars that leave this ' city. When, therefore, I learnt that the city postmaster had refused to receive any more because he had no room, I deemed it my duty personally to inspect the post office,
and see what justification there was for that explanation. I there was given ocular proof of the correctness of the statement. I was pointed to masses of accumulated bags, which blocked up the inside space. And as a considerable amount of general mail matter passes through the post office in and out, and the postmaster deemed it his duty to see that the general mail service was1 not unduly interfered with, he refused to receive any more mail bags. The postmaster, or one of his officers took me to the basement, which covers all the ground floor, and he there showed me hundreds of bags full of campaign literature which had been dumped on them, and to remove which they had not sufficient postal cars.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who dumped the bags in ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They were sent by the House of Commons postmaster to the city postmaster.


Adam Carr Bell: Is not that a perfectly regular proceeding ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly, that is the proper thing to do.


Adam Carr Bell: Why then characterize it as dumping ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Because the expression aptly describes what was done. I am trying to give the facts. The postmaster or rather his deputy then took me to the entrance of the building, where there is a very considerable lobby space, and he here pointed out to me the accumulation of bags and said :	' In our efforts to accommodate we have received all the bags we can find storage for inside the building,' and he pointed to me-may I use the word *[DOT] monuments.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Mountains.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He pointed to a mountain of bags, and said that there was not space for another bag. When he told me that the mail clerks on the cars had complained that they could not handle any more matter, and that the quantity forced on them was calculated to interfere with the general mail service of the' country, I prosecuted the inquiry further.


Mr. GOURLEY.: Will the hon. gentleman allow me to ask him a question ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I want to ask if he reprimanded this underling, this understrapper who undertook to interfere with the privilege of parliament ? He ought to have dismissed him at once, instead of listening to his impudence.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know to what officer the hon. gentleman re-

fei-s. The city postmaster informed me that they were sending out by train all that the trains could take. I made inquiry of another officer in order to learn the fact from him also.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who was that officer ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The controller of the railway mail service. I asked him why they did not remove more of this matter by the trains, and he gave me this explanation : * Most of this mail matter,' he said, ' was for Ontario.' There was some small proportion of it for the west, but the great and overwhelming bulk of it was for the province of Ontario. There are only four passenger trains a day carrying mails leaving Ottawa for the west. He told me that, considering the limited capacity of the postal cars-for every one knows that only a portion of a car, as a rule, is devoted to postal purposes, there being a compartment for express, and, perhaps one for baggage also-they were carrying all that they could possibly carry.


Hon. Mr. HAGGART.: In four cars ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes.


John Graham Haggart: Did you believe him ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did and I do believe him.


Mr. BRODER.: Will the hon. minister allow me to ask him how it is that this matter can come here so quickly if it cannot get away ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understand that it came by post, by express, by baggage and in every way it could get here. But, when mail matter is being exported from the city, it cannot be sent away under conditions which allow of it being sent in carloads; it must be sent under such conditions that the bags may be opened the moment the train starts on its journey, and the separate pieces of mail matter which the bags contain sorted for their destination. Mr. Armstrong, the controller of the railway mail service, informed me that there is a very considerable volume of mail matter from the city, from the public generally, that must leave by every outgoing train, and an additional average of ten bags per postal car is all that can be accommodated. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) represented that it was only the question of the despatch of forty bags a day. It is not such a question, but a question of despatching a very large number of bags per day. But the whole of the mail service, from Ottawa westward cannot be assigned exclusively to any particular class of work. But if there must be a choice, I should think that we should be bound to give precedence to the general correspondence of the people dealing with trade and other matters, rather than allow it to be shut out by any other Sir WILLIAM MTILOCK.
class of mail matter. For example, there are large quantities of goods sent by mail, as well as a great many newspapers and other pieces of printed matter. If the situation is such that there is not accommodation for everything in the mails, I think priority should be given to correspondence. But, whether that view is acquiesced in or not, Mr. Armstrong-and there is no better authority ; he is not one of my appointees ; I promoted him to his high office, but he is an old and experienced officer appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite and there is no more faithful official in the public service of Canada-Mr. Armstrong informed me that considering the demands upon the service of postal cars leaving Ottawa, they are not able to handle an average of more than ten bags per train in addition to the other dfe-mands upon the accommodation upon the cars.


Mr. CLANCY.: A pretty bad service.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The cars 'now in use are as large as are available. I did not build them or organize them ; they are the cars of the country, and the cars that have been used for the performance of this service year after year. If hon. gentlemen opposite say that we should supplement the service by subsidizing additional train service to carry away the mails and so prevent congestion by this class of literature, that is another question.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question, if I may. I have been informed that one of the large newspapers in the city of Montreal was sending away 3,000 bags a week. Tire Postmaster General will observe that, according to the statement of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) that is twice ns many bags as the whole number that have caused this congestion. Is it the case that one newspaper in Montreal send out over 3,000 bags a week.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Which go through the mails


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly, which go through the mails-and, if so, how is it possible that there should be so great congestion in this office because the department is called upon to handle sixty or seventy bags a week ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am not familiar with all the details of the working of the post office. But I was explaining that, where mail matter has to go in a postal car, and the assorting of the pieces in the bags must go on while the car is on its journey, that is very different matter from a newspaper being able to ship away by post, by freight, by baggage, by express, by steamer, and in every way, thousands of bags a week. There are many ways for these thousands of bags which leave Montreal weekly to go. I am now speaking of

the service that has to be performed by means of the postal cars on the four regular trains leaving here daily for the west. The situation is as I stated, so far as I know and so far as I believe it to be-that it is not possible, with the railway facilities now furnished this country, to take from this city, during the session, more than forty bags per day over and above the average output of the session. There is always a very considerable amount of franking going on during the session, and this adds to the volume of the mail matter leaving Ottawa in the regular and ordinary course.


Robert Laird Borden: My hon. friend the Postmaster General mentioned forty bags in one case and ten bags in another.
I suppose these tigures apply to different conditions, but I do not know that I understood exactly.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I was speaking of what Mr. Armstrong, the controller of the railway mail service told me. He said they could not find accommodation in the car for the receipt of these bags and the handling of the matter they contained- there must lie men in the car and they must have floor space to work in-for more than an average of ten additional bags to each car, which, with a car to each train and four trains a day, would make an everage of forty bags. I have urged Mr. Armstrong -I may tell my hon. friends in good faith- to do all that is possible. I address myself particularly to my hon. friend from Pictou. He is a gentleman to whose good opinion I attach some weight. I am sorry that he should have expressed himself as he has done. I am sure lie spoke in ignorance of the facts, but he has, unintentionally, done me an injustice.
I am not asking him to recall or recant what he may have said in a moment of weakness. I concede to him and all lion, gentlemen the privilege of making the best they can out of a bad cause. But I am now dealing with this matter departmentally, and I say that Mr. Armstrong reported to me that if the regular train service only were available it would take nearly sixty days to carry off all the mail matter that is now here, this additional mail matter that we have to despatch. Therefore, if, as my hon. friend says, we are not to prorogue until this stuff is carried away, we might as well adjourn over the Christmas vacation. Now, the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) charged me with acting in a high-handed manner in withholding from the Montreal ' Star' the privilege of receiving bags. Let me say that it was not a question of choice. When I gave the order not to give out to that paper any more bags until they had returned to us some 1,830 they had, I did so because of the department being unable to supply the other publishers with the quantity of bags they required, simply because the Montreal 'Star' had obtained so
large a number. The Montreal 'Star' having obtained possession, for this illegitimate purpose, of such a large number of bags, over 1,830, in a short time, not only exhausted the supply that would have been available for that paper, but a considerable number that would have been available for other publishers. My deputy endeavoured in every possible way to meet the difficulty, telegraphing to Winnipeg and to other places to gather in these bags, if there were any that were available, in older that we might meet the shortage in Montreal.


Robert Laird Borden: What supply of bags have you in the city of Montreal ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The supply of bags that go to newspapers is different from the supply of other bags. There are all sorts of bags, there are bags of different sizes and grades ; there are small bags for letters, there are waterproof bags for certain purposes, there are bags for the English mail, and there are these large sacks which are used for the newspapers.


Robert Laird Borden: How many was your deputy successful in finding ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: We got 200 from Winnipeg. The public there have been inconvenienced beyond measure by the hundreds of bags that have been lying to the order of the whip of the opposition, by reason of the space being used for the storage of this Tory literature.


Samuel Hughes: Was there not a very serious congestion at Winnipeg for some months before this Liberal-Conservative literature was being distributed ? Is it not true that members of this House from that region have complained chat mail matter was being delayed there for want of accommodation long before this literature was distributed ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It happens that owing to the great prosperity which is now blessing this country, the business of Winnipeg is to-day in a most flourishing condition, and the post office, which was erected by our predecessors, a post office of very diminutive proportions, which showed their conception of the future of this country, and which they thought was adequate to meet all the requirements of that district for many years to come, that post office, I say, owing to the beneficent influence of the present administration upon business, now proves wholly insufficient to meet the requirements of the business people of the west. That is a condition regrettable in itself, but not to be deplored in view of the cause. My officers have endeavoured in all possible ways to supplement the post office accommodation of that city and to get additional floor space for handling the mails. But so prosperous is that city that it is hardly possible to rent a

1454S
*single building for that purpose, if, therefore. the mail service in Winnipeg is taxed to its utmost capacity, it is only what may be said of the business people of Winnipeg generally, who find themselves scarcely able to carry on the great volume of business which comes to them. The market is so satisfactory that even the manufacturers and trades people of Winnipeg are not able to do the business which presents itself to them, owing to the lack of capacity in their premises. But coming back again to the subject we were discussing, I was explaining why I found it necessary to withhold from the Montreal ' Star ' that issue of bags which it. would have been otherwise the pleasure and the duty of the department to make to them. We did not issue to them all the bags that were asked for on Monday, simply because we did not! have them available, simply because the Montreal ' Star ' had got into its possession more than its fair share, some 1,S00 bags odd, and was inconveniencing the rest of the service.


Andrew Broder: Is it not a fact that the great majority of these bags were here in the custody of the Ottawa post office, and not in use by the Montreal ' Star ' ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They are sent here to the order of the chief whip of the opposition, and they are used for holding this accumulated tonnage of literature, some of it, I am sorry to say, of a very incendiary and seditious character. I hope I shall have the moral and physical support of the hon. member for North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) in endeavouring to preserve the peace of this country in the event of its being disturbed by the dissemination of this inflammatory literature. However, I hope it will not be necessary, even after this appeal to arms which has been made, to call upon my hon. friend to render to this country the same gallant and valuable services which he has rendered on another occasion to the empire. Again I will endeavour to return to the Montreal ' Star.' The department did not feel it fair or right to the other publishers to continue to issue to the Montreal ' Star ' the property of the department to be used for a purpose unauthorized and unwarranted, and the issue to the ' Star ' was discontinued until it returned to the government the bags which it had obtained, and gave a guarantee or assurance-^! word would be sufficient-that they would not hereafter be put to the uses to which they were then being put.


Mr. SPROULE.: How could the ' Star ' return them when they were in the possession of the Post Office Department here ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I understand there are some down in the express offices and stored around town. Are those in the possession of the government ? When I last took stock of the bags in our possession-


Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.: 


Edward Frederick Clarke: We don't take much stock in it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At any rate, on Saturday a hundred odd additional sacks reached this city. I believe they came by post. Then I believe we got on Sunday 400 odd bags that arrived by train. At that time, as I was told by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Macpherson), he counted 735 sacks full of this literature scattered through the corridors of this building ; at this particular time the whole basement of the post office building was also occupied with bags of this literature, several hundred in number, and the lobby of the city' post office was also crowded to the ceiling with one or two hundred more. I do not remember how this totalled up, but X think it came up to the vicinity of 2,000 bags.


Edward Frederick Clarke: One thousand eight hundred and thirty, the hon. gentleman said.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is not very far from 2,000.


Edward Frederick Clarke: That is the statement the hon. gentleman made.
The "POSTMASTER GENERAL. I said in the vicinity of 2,000. Call it 1.830 for short. I take the view that the diversion of these bags has been caused by the Montreal ' Star,' and that they are responsible for the return of these bags. Yesterday, when representatives of the ' Star ' appealed to me on the subject I told them that I would be pleased to start the issue of them at once if they would make it possible to me to do so by returning those bags.


Robert Laird Borden: May I ask the hon. gentleman upon whose information it is that he states that 400 bags came up on Sunday ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Upon the information of my deputy.


Robert Laird Borden: I can inform the hon. gentleman that the statement is absolutely inaccurate. The 400 pieces to which he refers were not conveyed in bags at all. They were bundles tied up and it was Saturday they came and not Sunday.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The assistant city postmaster pointed out to me a pile of mail bags containing this material which he said reached him on Saturdav evening.


An hon. MEMBER.: How many were there V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not count them but hon. gentlemen may go down and count them for themselves. There would be over 100 bags in that lot.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not talking about bags at all. I am talking about the 400 pieces that were not in bags at all.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When did they come ?


Robert Laird Borden: On Saturday.


Mr. TAYLOR.: They did not come by the mail at all. They came by express.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Then we are dealing with those that did not come by mail. I am dealing with the fact that the post office in Montreal isued at least 1,830 'bags to the Montreal ' Star ' and that they were used for this purpose.


George Taylor: No.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 know they were. I have it on the authority of the head of the postal stores branch.


Edward Frederick Clarke: In what period of time V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Since this movement began.


George Taylor: Six weeks ago.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: 1 want to show how I have treated that company and I think that the House will admit that I have treated them fairly. I informed the representatives of the ' Star ' yesterday that as fast as they could get any of these bags liberated and if they told me that they would not misuse them the courtesy would be restored to them. I said that I would speak to Mr. Speaker and see if he could assist them in that movement. Mr. Speaker was good enough to receive them and I understand that he assisted them to carry out the arrangement. Last night the manager of the ' Star ' told me that about 100 bags had been emptied and would be returned to the department this morning. I then told him that I would give him an order and I did write a telegram last night and delivered it to the representative of the ' Star ' giving instructions to the post office authorities in Montreal at once to give to the ' Star ' 100 sacks if they had them available and if it did not inconvenience other publishers.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes, if it did not inconvenience other publishers because inconvenience has been occasioned by the Montreal ' Star ' and other publishers have no right to be inconvenienced. I notified the representatives of the ' Star ' this morning that as fast as we got any of the sacks back we would continue to enlarge the issue until we get back to the normal state of affairs when we would have no more trouble with the matter. I think they will not complain that the department has treated them unfairly. On the contrary 1 have reason to think that they do not attach any special blame to the Post Office Department. I think they know where the real responsibility rests.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Where is that ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They know where it rests.


Mr. COCHRANE.: It rests with the hon. Postmaster General.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, it does not rest with the Postmaster General and it does not attach to any of his officers. The congestion continues to-day and it cannot be relieved at once unless parliament is prepared to subsidize special trains for the particular purpose of carrying this mail matter at an enormous expense to the country. If it did it would be enlarging the service to an extent never before contemplated. The assistant city postmaster who has been for many years in that office and who has practically charge of it tells me that in his long experience he has never witnessed such a state of affairs as that which has taken place to-day. Yesterday I received a letter from a leading manufacturer in a town not far from this city who told me that it was his practice in the course of his business at certain times in the year to hand into the post office large quantities of circulars advertising his business to be transmitted through the mails and that when on Friday last he visited the post office in connection with this issue lie was informed by the postmaster in that large town that there had come into the post office under the frank of a member of this House such an immense quantity of this literature and other literature, mentioning the character of it, being in the form of hand sheets issued by the Manufacturers Association, I think he said, that it would take him two or three days to clear off this avalanche of postal matter which had been thrown in upon him and that until it was cleared out he could not receive the mail matter that this business man was offering to him. This is but one illustration of the extent to which this has gone and therefore perhaps it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that no Post Office Department could very reasonably be expected to be called upon unexpectedly to perform such an extraordinary, and I may say, useless and expensive service as that which the Post Office Department is now being asked to perform.


Mr. GEO.: TAYLOR {Leeds and Grenville). Mr. Speaker, I regret that when my hon. friend the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) rose in his place this morning for the purpose of drawing the attention of the government to some grievances that not only he himself, but-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my bon. friend (Mr. Taylor) will allow me, there is one point that the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Bell) referred to that I intended to speak upon. He discussed the franking privilege. The franking privilege does not come into this discussion at all. Every one has rights under the statute. There is no attempt or desire to curtail any one's rights in that regard. This is simply a question

of administration, and while the hon. gentleman may argue it from the standpoint of the franking privilege that is not the issue here. The franking privilege remains as long as the statute remains as it is and any lion, gentleman is perfectly within his right in availing himself of the benefits of the statute. The department does not in the faintest degree desire to do anything to interfere with anybody's rights in that regard. It may be a question whether you are exercising that right within such reasonable limits as to make it possible to practically enjoy it.


Edward Cochrane: Who is to be the judge in that matter ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: You.


Edward Cochrane: I have as good a right to be the judge as the hon. Postmaster General. I want to tell hon. gentlemen who are so ready to use their mouths without any sense


George Taylor: I was remarking when interrupted by the hon. Postmaster General and Minister of Labour that 1 regretted very much, that, when my hon. friend the leader of the opposition rose in his place for the purpose of drawing the attention of the government to a grievance that he, himself, was subjected to and not only himself but many of his supporters, the right hon. leader of the government (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) should have answered him in the way he did. It is to be regretted that the Prime Minister, instead of promising to remove these grievances, should have attacked the Montreal ' Star,' declaring that it had abused its privilege by sending mail matter to the whip of the opposition. But the right hon. gentleman did not say that the Montreal ' Herald,' which is largely subsidized by his government, has done the same thing. The ' Herald ' printed hundreds of thousands of copies of the Prime Minister's speech on the transcontinental railway, and sent them up here in mail bags-


Some hon. MEMBERS: No.


George Taylor: I say yes, and I know it. The supplements of the Montreal ' Herald ' were franked all over the country by the supporters of the government, just in the same way as this was done by us. Why were we not told about this ?


Edward Frederick Clarke: He was not frank enough to say that.


George Taylor: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Carried.


George Taylor: I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to see that I am protected in my rights. The Prime Minister did not refer to the matter brought to his attention by the leader of the opposition, which was, that you, Mr. Speaker, acting. I presume, on instructions from the Postmaster General-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order,
Mr. TAY'LOR-had refused to receive into this House


Mr. SPEAKER.: The statement which the hon. gentleman has made is incorrect.


George Taylor: I take it back, but I have the right to say that you did this, and I have the right to suppose that you did it, acting on his instructions, because it is a post office matter.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: That statement is incorrect.


George Taylor: 1 know that the Sergeant at Arms told me last night-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Take it back.


George Taylor: I have taken it back. I ask the Speaker to keep the gang sitting across the House quiet. Hon. gentlemen will get prorogation in a very few days if they keep on like that. The Sergeant at Arms told me last night that he had instructions from the Speaker, not to allow the stuff that came to me by express to enter the House. I paid the express charges of $32.04 upon it, and when it came to the door it was not let in. and it was driven back to the express office.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Shame.


George Taylor: By whose authority was that done ? I went to the express company this morning, and I told them to send it back again, and I would carry it into the House myself, if Mr. Sergeant at Arms or Mr. Chief Messenger should order it away again.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: It came up here and he refused to let it come into the House, and it was dumped on the ground, and I said : ' If you don't call out an army of messengers and carry it into the House, you will hear more about it.' Somebody gave the order then, and the messengers were put to work, and it was carried into the House. That is the kind of treatment we are subjected to. As every one knows, I leave for home On Saturday, but last Saturday I remained until the seven o'clock train on account of the absence of the leader of the opposition. As soon as I left the House the Postmaster General saw fit to make an attack upon me, and if he is correctly reported in the newspaper-


Edward Frederick Clarke: When your back was turned.


George Taylor: Yes, when my back was turned. But I generally give a Roland for an Oliver, and I am going to draw the attention of the House to the undignified conduct of the Postmaster General


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


George Taylor: I withdraw ' undignified.'


William Mulock: 


Samuel Hughes: You don't have to ; that's all right.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate.


George Taylor: 1 am referring to what the Postmaster General said in my absence, if the newspaper report is correct.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The report in the newspaper is stated to be a report of what took place in the House. The hon. gentleman cannot refer to a past debate.


George Taylor: I can read what I see in the newspaper as a statement made by the Postmaster General reflecting on me. Here is what


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman cannot refer to any previous debate.


Samuel Hughes: He is not referring to a previous debate.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If this were allowed, then we would have every day a repetition of what was said the previous day.


Robert Laird Borden: The hon. gentleman is referring to a previous debate for the purpose of explaining an attack that has been made upon him.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has a right to make a personal explanation, but I understand that he wants to make an argument.


Robert Laird Borden: He is rising to make a personal explanation.


George Taylor: If I am attacked by a member in this House, I have a right to answer it. Here is what the Postmaster General is reported to ha'-e said :
I have alluded


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: A personal explanation is not an argument to meet an argument which has been made by some other member of the House.


Robert Laird Borden: If an hon. member of this House has been charged in his absence with some conduct which is not regarded as proper, he has a right to explain his connection with that matter, and to deny that he acted in such a way as invited criticism.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: The hon. gentleman has a right to make a personal explanation, provided he does not enter into an argument.


George Taylor: 
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He is not an officer of the Tost Office Department.


George Taylor: He is an officer of this House acting under the instruction of the I Postmaster General. These hags commenced

arriving here on the 20th of September. Every day as they came in here they were emptied and the contents were franked and they were sent to the post office. The post office took them in, put the stamp of the post office on them and threw them out into the corridor and to-day there are 300 bags lying there, stamped by the post office, blocking up the corridor around the front of the post office, in the lobbies, and extending down towards the telegraph offices. Each one of these has been through the post office and has been stamped by the officers of the department, but owing to instructions to receive only so many bags a day so as to prevent as far as possible the sending of this literature to the country, the city post office can take only forty bags a day while tons and tons of matter are going in from different departments for transmission through the mails. If, as the leader of the opposition asked this morning, a commission is appointed we will be able to prove that from every department mountains of literature, put up by servants and paid for by the people of; this country are being sent. In one department last week there were six men sitting around a table putting up this blue-book upon the transcontinental railway and the speech of the right hon. the Prime Minister. They were folding them up and sending them out under a minister's frank, paid for by the people of this country, and because the postmaster would not allow our bags to be delivered to us from the post office, as it is our right to have them delivered, we have had to pay $32 of express and then we have been refused the right of admission for express parcels into the House. Is this not a grievance for the opposition ? And yet when it is brought to the attention of the Prime Minister he laughs at it as if to say : You, the leader of the opposition, and the gentlemen supporting you have no rights in this House ; you cannot have express parcels come here ; our officers, the sergeant-at-arms, the chief messenger and the Speaker have forbidden it and it cannot come in. The sergeant-at-arms told me last night that it could not be delivered. I made up my mind that it would be if I had to walk through the sergeant-at-arms, the chief messenger, the Speaker and, back of them all, the Postmaster General. These gentlemen, like the coon in the tree, came down this morning and gave orders to carry it in and it is there and this House is not going to rise until the Postmaster General gets these bags through his post office, so the sooner the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition come to an agreement the sooner this House will prorogue. It will not prorogue a day before the opposition are satisfied that every package of literature that is in these buildings will be sent out, not that it will be held by the Postmaster General, who said a few minutes ago that we would Mr. TAYLOR.
be here until after Christmas if we waited until this was all sent out. We know what he will do ; the moment the session is over, as soon as the gun is fired, the franking privilege will cease and the Postmaster General will order a bonfire to burn up this literature. We know that he is afraid, that the Prime Minister is afraid to have this literature go to the country ; they are afraid to have the people of this country enlightened on this enormity of the transcontinental railway. We know that. The Postmaster General said that the whole system is blocked on account of the use of these mail bags. If a fire happened and these 1,830 mail bags were burnt would that block the post office system of this country ? Altogether in the last six weeks only 1,830 bags of this literature have been sent from the 'Star' office addressed to me here and they have not been in my possession twenty-four hours until they were emptied, their contents franked, and handed to the post office here to take charge of them. I want to ask the Postmaster General now why a couple of hundred bags addressed to me have been held at the Ottawa city post office for the last eight or ten days ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Where is that ?


George Taylor: In the city post office, because Mr. Speaker gave his instructions to the sergeant-at-arms, and he to the chief messenger not to allow the bags to come into this building.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: You say there are a quantity of bags addressed to you in the lobby of the post office at Ottawa.


George Taylor: They are held in the post office at Ottawa ; the men brought them up here but had to draw them back again by order of the Speaker through the sergeant-at-arms and the chief messenger. They are down there now and I went to the post office and asked the postmaster why they were not delivered.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The hon. gentleman asks me a question but he, himself gives the answer because he says the Speaker refused to permit these bags to enter the building. I must say that I have never for a moment taken the liberty of suggesting anything to the Speaker, who is responsible for the proper administration of the lobbies of this House, in respect to this matter. I have nothing whatever to do with the actions of either the Speaker or of the sergeant-at-arms or any other officer of this House.


George Taylor: The hon. gentleman said a while ago that the city post office is to blame. This stuff came in addressed to me atl the House of Commons and why has it not been delivered ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not carry it around.


George Taylor: The leader of the opposition brought this to the attention of the Prime Minister this morning and he paid no attention to it. Here are the bags addressed to me lying in the post office a week and not delivered. That is a/ nice state of affairs. One load was brought up here, but by orders of the officers of this House they were not admitted, and I am satisfied, I have that much confidence in the Speaker, that unless there was some intimation from the Postmaster General he would not of his own accord say :	Do not admit literature
addressed to Mr. Taylor into the precincts of this House.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend is entirely in error ; there has been no interference of any kind on my part or on the part of any one else to prevent the delivery of this mail matter. The only difficulty has arisen because of the state of the lobbies and halls of this House. The Speaker himself, of his own motion decided, that it was better not to allow any further accumulations. I requested the Speaker, if he could, to place a room at the disposal of the hon. gentleman that there might be no such difficulty and he informed me that he had placed at his disposal the Railway Committee room, the largest available room in this building, which it is thought will greatly relieve the congestion.


Edward Frederick Clarke: But how much floor space is there in it ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Three thousand square feet. That room is at his disposal if he desires to use it. I may say that the mail service between the city post office and the House of Commons post office is not under the control of the Postmaster General or of the Post Office Department, but is under the control of the postmaster of the House of Commons, who is an officer of this House and therefore if there were facilities to receive this matter here the hon. gentleman could have it delivered at once.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General makes a very pleasant speech, but what are the facts ? He says that he requested the Speaker to get rooms and the Speaker kindly placed at the disposal of the ' Star ' men the Railway Committee room upstairs. I immediately went to the messenger department to know if I could have the stuff moved up there, but they could not give me a man to do it. Then we offered to hire six men, but that offer was not accepted nor were we allowed to use the elevator.
At one o'clock, House took recess.
House resumed at three o'clock.


George Taylor: When the House rose at one o'clock, I was trying, in my humble
way, to refute the charge brought against me by_the Postmaster General, when he said that I had in my possesssion an enormous quantity of mail bags, and that if I did not deliver them by Monday morning-and the hon. gentleman knew very well that I would not be here until five o'clock on Monday afternoon-that he would take forcible possession of them by law. I want to explain how these bags came to be in my possession. They came addresssed to me. The contents were taken out and franked, and, at the request of the postmaster of the House of Commons, instead of being carried into the post office and dumped on the floor there, they were put back into the mail bags. The postmaster took the bags into the post office, sorted out the contents, stamped them with, the post office stamp, filled the bags again, and sent them out into the corridor, where they have been the last two or three days. How am I responsible ? If I or any one else attempted to empty the bags and hand them over to the Postmaster General, the postmaster could have us arrested for tampering with His Majesty's mails. The Postmaster General charges me with improperly holding these bags when they were in the charge of the postmaster of this House. I want the hon. the Postmaster General to get up and apologize for having charged an hon. member with having in his possession improperly and refusing to return the bags belonging to His Majesty or the Post Office Department. I have sat in this House 22 sessions. During the 14 years I sat on that side, and the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues sat on this, and I challenge the right hon. gentleman or any member of his government or any of his supporters, to say that any one of them was ever refused delivery of any parcel or bag addressed to him and sent by express or mail. Neither the Prime Minister nor any of his supporters can say that during the 18 years they sat in opposition they were ever refused any franking privilege, and they sent out tons of literature franked all over the country. But they seem to think that they can ride over us roughshod. They even refuse to allow 'express parcels to be delivered to us. I call upon the Prime Minister to explain by what authority in law any officer of the government has the right to stop an express wagon at the door of parliament and refuse -to allow it to deliver goods to a member of this House. The sergeant-at-arms knows that that has been done this session, and the Postmaster General should explain. That hon. gentleman made ia statement a few moments ago which he knew was not correct. He said that 100 bags came for me on Saturday and 400 on Sunday. Where are they ? Why does he or his officers deny me the right to have these bags here ? Why are they not delivered ? If the bags are there, I want them. The Postmaster General notified an official of the Canadian Express Company not to bring

a bag into the city of Ottawa by express or he would have the company prosecuted.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is wholly without foundation.


George Taylor: The agent of the express company made that statement since noon. He said that he was notified by the Post Office Department not to carry mail bags by express. He explained that they had not carried a bag since they had received notice that they would be prosecuted if they did. Yet the Postmaster General says that 400 of these bags came in on Sunday. As a matter of fact, 400 parcels came by express, but delivery was refused to me through the interference of officers of the House, under instructions of the Postmaster General.


Samuel Hughes: Perhaps the Postmaster General can explain whether 400 bags did come on Sunday ?


George Taylor: The Postmaster General says they came, and we must assume that he would not make a misstatement in this House. Then, the hon. gentleman said that there were not only carloads but train loads of this literature. How many trains would it take to carry 1,800 postal bags ? This gentleman aspiring to be a statesman, occupying the position of Postmaster General, Minister of Labour, a man ' vaster than has been,' rises in this House and makes a statement that one of the little page boys here would know to be absurd. Why, there are hardly enough of these bags to make three or four good wagon loads. Yet, he told us of the trains that would be- required to move these bags from this House. Eighteen hundred bags-and a man could take one on his shoulder, in fact he could carry one under each arm !
The Postmaster General accused us of abusing the franking privilege. Has he any idea of the conditions under which that privilege is to be exercised ? If so, why did he riot call down his colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Rt. Hon. Sir Richard Cartwright) who went to Toronto, delivered a speech in Massey Hall, then had it printed and hundreds of thousands of copies sent out under his own frank as Minister of Trade and Commerce. Every man in my constituency got a copy of that document, franked by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That was not only an improper but an illegal thing. Why did not the Postmaster General prevent that action ou the part of his colleague, or why has lie not since called upon him to contribute to the revenue the amount of postage that should have been paid upon these hundreds of thousands of documents sent through the mail. Ministers have the right to send out correspondence, departmental reports and so on ; but they have no right to send out copies of stump speeches, and particularly to have


George Taylor: 
The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I did not.


George Taylor: I do not wonder that he is afraid that it will set the country oil fire


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I made no such statement.


George Taylor: I suppose he fears that it will arouse such feeling that the militia under my hon. friend from North Victoria (Mr. Hughes) will have to be called out to quiet the people. Well, I have in my hand a copy of this literature, and I intend reading it, so as to put it on ' Hansard,' and I would ask the Postmaster General what part of it is incendiary and seditious ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The article headed ' To Arms.'
Canada's indictment against the government.
I am sure Canada is practically up in arms against the government for their monstrous scheme. Here we have on this paper a map showing each one of the provinces holding a flag, while the figure representing Canada holds a banner on which is inscribed :
People vs. Government. Broken promises. Wasteful administration. Increasing expenditure. Temporizing with tariff. Legislating for franchise dealers.
On the other side is the leader of the opposition holding a banner on which is inscribed :
Clean politics. Protect Canadian labour agricultural and industrial. Stop wasteful schemes Redeem promises.
The indictment continues:


George Taylor: This literature is in two sheets of newspaper form. One of them opens with the heading ' The Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Project :	Mr. Borden's Alternative Scheme-Mr. Blair's Sweeping Denunciation of the Cox Project.' Is that an incendiary part of this campaign literature ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Keep cool.


George Taylor: 
Samuel Hughes: Would my hon. friend permit me to interrupt him ? Perhaps the Postmaster General is ready to surrender and apologize for his misdeeds.


Mr. CAMPBELL.: Do not deprive ns of the benefit of hearing it.


George Taylor: I do not intend to ask him to surrender. As an opposition we are entitled to our rights, and I give the Postmaster General notice that we intend to have them. Then the indictment continues on the next side :
Government by hypocrisy. Platform built to get in upon ; immediately afterwards destroyed Public domains given over to speculators. Attempt to paralyze the sentinel whom Alexander Mackenzie left to guard the treasury. Burdening the Yukon, the Eldorado of Canada with a water concession of bad repute, and a handicap on the mining industry of the nation.
rmWIiat is there incendiary about that ? I. lie Postmaster General must be overflowing with indignation when he charges the leader of the opposition and his supporters with sending out incendiary literature to the people of this country. On the next page I find : $120,000,000 railway.' That is the estimate placed upon it by his own colleague the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals. Surely there is nothing incendiary about that.
To be built for a group of capitalists friendly to the government.
That is why the ex-Minister of Railways and Canals said that Cox could'nt wait,



that there was a ring which could not wait.
Without surveys, without estimates, without information. A reckless scheme that drove the Minister of Railways from the cabinet. Will kill the Intercolonial and sidetrack the canals. 'Cox can't wait.' so the people must pay.
After keeping parliament sitting all summer without disclosing its policy on the transcontinental railway question, the government suddenly announced a scheme at the tail end of the session.
It was an entire surprise to all concerned, and no one knows yet why many of its most absurd features were adopted.
It proposes that the government shall build a railway through an unknown wilderness from Winnipeg to Quebec, and then through the unpeopled forests of New Brunswick to Moncton. The government know so little of the route that they will not attempt even to estimate the cost of the line. Hon. Mr. Blair, whom this scheme drove fo resign the railway portfolio, and who ought to know more about it than any other man, says that it commits the government to an expenditure of $120,000,000. .
Will the Postmaster General get up and explain now what there is incendiary in the remarks I have read thus far ? X propose reading the document through, paragraph by paragraph and line by line, to show what there is incendiary about it. Surely the Postmaster General will withdraw that remark and not force me to read the whole document.


The POSTMASTER GENERAX.: , I have no desire to curtail the right of my hon. friend to read anything lie pleases. Rut if he desires me to allude to that portion of that paper which I regard as incendiary I will do so, at the same time I would not' like to prevent him from reading the intermediate part. The portion to which I alluded is that article headed ' To arms.' Will lie kindly read that article ?
Mr. TAYIjOR. That article is an appeal to the people of this country to take their ballots in their hands and turn the hon. gentlemen out. Is there anything incendiary about that ? The Postmaster General virtually said to-day :	This is an incendiary
document and ought not to he read by the people of this country, therefore I have a right. I, Sir William Mulock, Postmaster General, Minister of Iaibour, the vastest man in this country, the mail who licks the postage stamps for the people of this country, who puts the mucilage on them-I say this is incendiary literature and I won't allow it to go through the post office, and whatever is left after parliament rises we will make a bonfire of it on parliament hill. That is what the minister has said in the argument he made. That is the treatment he is dealing out to the opposition, and Be thinks they are weak and miserable enough to stand it. But he will find out before he gets through that every package of literature that is in these corridors, franked er unfranked, is going to go through the post Mr. TAYLOR.
office, and by his mails, because It is our right.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will the hon. gentleman permit me another remark?
I have said, and X repeat it again, that this is not a question of the franking privilege.
I have not the slightest desire to interfere, nor could I interfere, with any franking privilege possessed by members of this House.


Samuel Hughes: Now he is surrendering.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No, I am not surrendering. I told the hon. gentleman this morning that this was a matter affecting the department only, that special facilities had to be provided, that the ordinary facilities do not provide for the handling of such a mass of stuff as is now thrown in upon us. I hope the hon. gentleman will not again charge me with seeking to interfere with the franking right of any member.
Mr. TAYIjOR. I absolve the minister from that, because he knows as well as any one what the law is, and he knows he cannot interfere with the franking privilege. But lie knows that as soon as the House is closed that right ceases, and if he can only get along by dribbling out 40 bags a day while the end of the session is in sight and the literature is there, then after prorogation lie will not receive any more of it, because the law says that the franking privilege only lasts while the House is in session, or so, many days after. That is the scheme of the Postmaster General, and I challenge him to get up and deny it.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly, I deny it. The hon. gentleman is romancing. Whatever is posted is m the hands of the post office, and is entitled to go.


Mr.   CLARICE@: Then why did you not take it out of there, and obey the Speaker's order ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Because there is no place to put it.


George Taylor: Let the hon. gentleman sit down. I do not want my speech interfered with.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Whatever is posted has a right to pass through the mails.


George Taylor: But if the hon. gentleman instructs the Sergeant-at-Arms not to allow any mall matter to come in, how can it pass through the mails ? I paid ?22 express charges upon it, and the Sergeant-at-Arms would not allow it to come inside the House. How could I frank it ? The hon. gentleman has given instructions to the city post office to impound a number of bags addressed to me at the House of Commons, with the re-

suit that mail matter which is sent to the city post office to be delivered to me at the House of Commons is not delivered.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: When mail matter arrives at the city post office for delivery at the House of Commons the duty of the post office is completed, and it is prepared to hand over that matter to any officer from the House of Commons who is authorized to receive it. The House of Commons has always taken charge of the delivery of the mails between the House and the city post office. If mail matter is directed to an hon. gentleman it is only waiting his order or the officers of this House authorized to receive it. It is not withheld by the post office. On the contrary, we are most anxious to get rid of it.


George Taylor: Then why has not the rule been carried out ? Here is stuff which has been addressed to me at the House of Commons. It has arrived at the city post office. . The gentleman who has the contract for carrying the mail between this House and the city post office brought a load up here, and he was notified by the hon. Postmaster General's officers-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Not at all.


George Taylor: I know what I am speaking about-he was notified to take it back, and he took it back.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: By whom ?


George Taylor: By the chief messenger and the Sergeant-at-Arms.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have nothing to do with that.


George Taylor: Would it have been done if you had not interfered ? Did you, Mr. Speaker, of your own authority, say to the express companies of this city : You cannot [DOT]deliver any mail matter which is addressed to Mr. Taylor at the House of Commons, or any parcel addressed to Mr. Taylor to be delivered to him in his room in the House of Commons ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have been asked to make a statement by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) as to the use of the corridors and of the room of the House of Commons. I do it willingly, because I am glad to have the occasion to remove the bad impression under which the hon. member laboured during his remarks_ towards the Speaker of this House, and with regard to some orders which I deemed it my duty to give. A. few days ago my attention was called by some officers of the House to the fact that some of the corridors of the House of Commons were getting filled with mail bags, and without any permission from anybody authorized to give it. We then tried to find a room where those bags could be put, because we 456}
considered that the fact of those bags being in the corridors was not a nice sight for the numerous strangers who happened to visit our parliament buildings. We could not, however, find at first any available room. 1 then gave instructions to ship away those bags as soon as possible, and not to receive any more to be put in the corridors. I was, in doing that, following a precedent of some years ago, when the same question came up. The Speaker at that time ordered that the bags be removed from the sight of the strangers visiting the House. I consider that the corridors of the House of Commons are not available for warehouse or storage purposes. I may be wrong in that respect, but that is the view I entertain upon the question, and until the House decides to the contrary, I think that I am taking a reasonable view of the matter. It has never been my intention to prevent the members of the House who happen to have rooms at their disposal from using them the way they like, and I may say that I have never given any instructions which would deprive any of those members of their entire liberty in that respect. If some statements to the contrary have been made during the discussion, I may say that those statements have been made under an erroneous impression or erroneous information.
Yesterday the hon. member for South Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and a representative of the ' Star ' came to me and asked me whether they could have a room to empty those bags and release them for the use of that paper. We went over the whole ground and found that the only available room was the new Railway Committee room, which I was very glad to put at their disposal. They all seemed to be pretty well satisfied with that arrangement. At all events, the hon. member for South Leeds, who was then present, did not utter a word of dissent. On the contrary, I think he thanked me for what I was doing. I suggested at that interview that perhaps the bags could be put in No. 6, and that it would be more convenient for the members of the opposition. The hon. member for South Leeds went to inquire whether this could be done, and when he returned he said 'no.' Then it was agreed that the Railway Committee room would be at their disposal to empfy those bags and remove the congestion in the corridors. Now, I have been charged with having given orders to prevent the express companies from carrying parcels into room No. 6. I may say that I have never given any instructions of the sort, and the Sergeant-at-Arms reports to me that the orders he has given referred, not to any rooms, but to the corridors, and the parcels addressed to the rooms, so far as he is aware, have not been interfered with. I have every reason to believe that his statement is correct.
A reference has been made also by the hon. leader of the opposition to the fact that

there was a room available down stairs, which was used by some members for mailing' parcels and literature. I think he is misinformed in that respect. Last year, or two years ago, I think that room was occupied by five or six members of this House, and they might have sent parcels or literature from there. Since that room has become a dining room, I am not aware that it has been used for any other purpose. The hon. leader of the opposition also states that he has a small room, but he will be good enough to render me the justice of saying that last year I offered him a larger room, and that he told me he could not very easily take it. X may repeat that I never did prevent any of the members who have rooms from doing what they like with these rooms, but what I did was simply to prevent the corridors being used for storage or warehouse purposes, and in doing that I intended to do only what I considered my duty.


George Taylor: Mr. Speaker lias read a statement and has also spoken on behalf of the Sergeant-at-Arms. I say most emphatically that I went to the Sergeant-at-Arms last night and asked him why this stuff was turned away, and he said by instructions. I said : This matter is coming up in the morning, and I am going to take it to my room if I have to carry it myself. He said : You cannot do it. Mr. Speaker did offer to the representatives of the ' Star ' and myself the Railway Committee room, but I immediately asked how we were going to get the bags up there and could we get the messengers. No. we would have to hire our own men to carry it up there.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Why not ?


George Taylor: Because the messengers are used by the members of the government and their supporters to carry their literature and to do their messages while we can hardly get one to do an errand for us. The stuff is impounded at the post office and it is impounded at the express office, although it is addressed to myself. That is the position we are placed in. Mr. Speaker makes the statement that the corridors are blocked. They are not being blocked by myself or by any other member of the opposition. These bags have been filled in the post office, carried out and stacked in the corridors for weeks. Why does not Mr. Speaker order the postmaster to remove them ? Yet this is all charged against the opposition whip, who is held responsible for blocking the corridors. It is either the hon. Postmaster General or the postmaster of this House who is at fault in not having this stuff removed, because it has lain there for the past two or three weeks. We have emptied the bags that came in every day, franked them and put them back into the post office. Why should we be charged with causing the blockade ? The Sergeant-at-Arms will not deny that it was by his orders


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: that our stuff, which came by mail and by express, was turned away. He told me when I brought it up here this morning that I wmuid not be allowed to take it in, but I came prepared to take it in even if I had to carry it in myself. I defy the Sergeant-at-Arms or anybody else to deprive me of my right as a member of this House of taking my express parcels into my room. Here is the position we are in : The Iron. Postmaster General knows very well that if we did not get this stuff franked and Into the post office before the gun fired, or within two or three days after-wards, because I understand there are two or three days of grace, it would not go out to the people of this country. He said it was incendiary, because the electors were called to arms, to vote against this government, and he knows that the people are up in arms against the government. I want to embellish the pages of ' Hansard ' with this, so as to contradict the Postmaster General, who made a statement that he must know was not correct.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.
Mr. TAYLOR, I will take that back, Mr. Speaker. If he didn't know it was not correct, he ought to have known it. There is a lot of this stuff piled up on the green outside of the House, and if there comes a shower of rain it may be spoiled.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


George Taylor: I want you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct your officers to have that brought in and delivered to me in room No. 6. I want you to order your officers to take in the express matter which they refused to take. I want an order to the chief messenger that the stuff out on the green be brought in. Am I to understand that you do not answer, Mr. Speaker ?


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: If some stuff was brought for room No. 6 and has not been delivered to room No. 6, it is on account of some misunderstanding between the Sergeant-at-Arm and the hon. member. The Sergeant-at-Arms has just informed me that he has never refused to receive stuff coming to any room.
Mr. TAYLOR, There was a load of this literature came to me by express and the chief messenger refused to receive it.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: There must have been a misunderstanding.


George Taylor: The Sergeant-at-Arms told me last night that he could not send down for the express matter which was refused the other night.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: As I have said, there must be a misunderstanding, and I trust the hon. gentleman will not pursue that matter further.


George Taylor: Then somebody has backed down. I take the ground that neither

tlie Speaker nor the Postmaster General, nor the Sergeant-at-Arms, nor the chief messenger will deprive me of my lawful rights of having my literature delivered to me. The Postmaster General now says that there are 500 bags addressed to me impounded down in the post office. Will the Postmaster General issue an order to have that sent to me at this House immediately V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There appear to be a great many misunderstandings. I did not say anything about 500 bags being impounded. It is not a fact that any mail matter addressed to the hon. member is impounded at the post office, and not available to him. I have been informed that there are a large number of sacks sent from the ' Star ' office, Montreal, by post to the hon. gentleman, and as we have no storage accommodation for them in the post office proper, they are in the lobby of the post office. We are most anxious that the hon. gentleman should send for them and take them away. What I did state was that one of my officers informed me that there were 400 bags or packages of mail matter sent here on Sunday.


George Taylor: They were not in the post office ; they were in the express office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know even that. I was informed that they came to Ottawa, but I do not know whether it is correct or not.


Edward Cochrane: It is none of your business anyway.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It would be if the bags of the post office were used. If my hon. friend (Mr. Taylor) would take away one or two hundred bags that are lying there now, lie would accommodate the post office very much, because they are in the way.


Robert Laird Borden: I have made inquiry, and I find that 400 parcels, not 400 bags, have come by express, because the right to send them by mail under the franking privilege was denied. I am informed that after they came to Ottawa, an officer of the hon. gentleman's department called upon the express company, and threatened to prosecute because they did not come by mail.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sure that is an entire mistake.


Robert Laird Borden: That is my information.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to give me the name of the officer ?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know the name of the officer, but I will give it to the Postmaster General before the day is over. I am informed that first we were
denied the right of sending them by mail, and then, having sent them at our own cost, by express, the express company, our agent, was threatened with prosecution because he was violating the law in relation to the carriage of mail.


George Taylor: The Postmaster General says that there are at the post office one or two hundred bags of mall matter addressed to me at the House of Commons.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I didn't say that.


George Taylor: He told me that there were a number o,f bags addressed to me in the lobby of the post office, and he wished I would go down and take them. And he wished I would go and get them.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So I do.


Edward Frederick Clarke: There is free delivery in this city; why do you not deliver them ?


George Taylor: Under the franking privilege any parcel sent to me by post should be delivered to me at the post office in the House of Commons; that is the law.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Where is that law ?


George Taylor: And yet the Postmaster General calls on me to go to the city post office, to hire a cart and draw these bags up. Is that the way the hon. gentleman intends to treat the opposition ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Post Office Department delivers no mail matter for any member of this House, on this side or on that side. The House itself has always had its own arrangement for conveying this mail matter from the city post office to the House of Commons post office, and1 vice versa, and it is a matter for the committee of this House to deal with.


Edward Frederick Clarke: Who pays for its conveyance between the two post offices ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The House of Commons.


George Taylor: The jjeople of this country pay for it. The Postmaster General went to the post office and inspected this mail matter and knows that it is addressed to me at the House of Commons, yet it is not sent up here. Who is neglecting his duty ? Why has not that been sent here ? It was sent to the House, but was refused admittance, and was sent back to the post office. Now, Mr. Speaker, what is to become of this stuff which is at the city post office ? I desire an answer.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: I have no further statement to make. I do not desire to take any part in the discussion, and I do not think it is becoming for the Speaker to take part in a discussion.


George Taylor: I want information ; is the gentleman who carries the mail from the

city post office to the House of Commons post office under your jurisdiction ? Is the chief messenger of this House under your jurisdiction ? The gentleman who carries the mail from the city post office to this post office brought a load of that to the House ; your chief messenger ordered him to take it back, and would not receive it, and I wish to know who is at fault. I ask the Postmaster General who is at fault, and why I had not possession of the 100 bags which the Postmaster General says he saw at the post office ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know that my hon. friend will accept my opinion on the subject, but I am quite willing to give it. The whole trouble has arisen from the action of the hon. gentleman in deluging this House with more mail matter than there is accommodation for. The post office accommodation in this building is limited. The building is supplied with a post office room, but that is inadequate to hold the quantity of mail matter that the hon. gentleman desires to have put into it. Whoever approved of the plan of this building in years gone by are to blame, because they did not anticipate this extraordinary condition. However, the bringing of the mails up here is a matter entirely under the control of the House of Commons of Canada. The hon. gentleman is right in saying that the stuff is waiting at the city post office, and I certainly wish with all my heart that the hon. gentleman would make arrangements to remove it.


George Taylor: I will have to make an appeal to the Prime Minister. I have been in this House 21 years, 14 years supporting a government when he sat on this side of 'the House, and I would ask him if he ever saw the opposition treated by the Conservative party as the opposition is now being treated by the government ? This matter has been refused admittance to the House ; a load came this morning and is now out on the green. Is that the treatment that the Premier intends meting out to the members of the opposition ?


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not attach the same importance to this matter as my bon. friend does; perhaps because of the difference in the point of view. I sympathize, however, when he tells us that a lot of this stuff is on the green, and it would be worse if this stuff should be exposed to rain. Perhaps, however, it would extinguish the fire in it if it is incendiary. If my hon. friend bad consulted me earlier, I have not much control over these matters, but I think the resources of the country are adequate to deal with the difficulty, to have the stuff removed from the green, and I think I could undertake to say more, to have ,it carried over and placed on the trains and disposed of.


George Taylor: 


George Taylor: The Prime Minister is good at making evasive answers. He says the resources of the country are adequate to receive and despatch the mail. If he, as Prime Minister, had an officer at the head of the Post Office Department who would give instructions, it could be done, but the Postmaster General knows that the postmaster in this House has had bags in his possession for three weeks and has not sent them to the city post office; he has authorized the city post office to receive only 40 bags a day, and then he makes the statement that we are to go on at that rate, and that we will be kept here until after Christmas if all of these bags are to be sent out-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: So we will.


The PRIME MINISTER.: Will you allow me to have a moment's conference with my hon. friend the Postmaster General, and I think I can soften him ?


George Taylor: While the conference is going on, I shall present to the House-


The PRIME MINISTER.: That is not fair; my hon. friend is like the Boer, when we are in conference he prepares for war. Let me confer with the Postmaster General, and then perhaps we can solve this difficulty.


Robert Laird Borden: I would like to say that, so far as using the corridors for warehouse purposes is concerned. I regard you, Mr. Speaker, as having absolute jurisdiction, but not as having jurisdiction to order away from the precincts of the House matters sent by mail or express to any member. From the statement which Mr. Speaker read to the House, we may arrive at the conclusion -that he is of the same opinion and that any occurrence of the kind was due probably to some misunderstanding. As far as using the room down stairs is concerned, I may say that I did not know it was used as a dining room, but as I have not been accustomed to go into the lower precincts so much perhaps as other hon. members, I cannot speak with authority on that point. With respect to my own accommodation, I did not rise for the purpose of making any complaint, although I regard it as somewhat inadequate for the purposes of my work, but I owe apology to you Mr. Speaker, for having forgotten that last year you did offer me somewhat larger quarters, which I did not think I could use, because they were not conveniently situated. I did make an effort to have another room somewhat nearer mine but that did not seem practicable. In what I said this morning, I did not speak, Mr. Speaker, in any personal sense, but on a question of importance as to whether or not any man occupying tbe Chair of Mr. Speaker has the right to

issue the orders which I understood, when I spoke yesterday, had been issued by you, Sir, in this regard. I do not wish to comment on the somewhat sneering terms in which the right hon. the Prime Minister referred to my remarks. He suggested that I desired to put myself on a higher plane than eminent men who have occupied my present position. I trust that my past course in this House is sufficient to justify me from that. If the right hon. gentleman did not enjoy more accommodation in this House than is now given me, the demands of one in my position are perhaps larger than they were years ago-larger because the business of the country is growing and more work has to be done. My right hon. friend speaks of some matters as trifling, for example, whether or not a mass of campaign literature has been addressed and circulated from departments of the government by servants employed and paid by the country. I am not inclined to regard that as so small a matter, and years ago the right hon. gentleman would have been inclined to speak in a different tone regarding it. But that was in the days when he was advocating greater efficiency and purity in the administration of public affairs. I wish to address myself to the practical difficulties of the situation. The Postmaster General says 1,830 bags have been used for this purpose.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: At least.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that is an outside estimate, if I am correctly informed. But let me point out to the hon. gentleman that 1,830 bags are only a little more than one-half the number which one newspaper in Montreal uses every week. This work began as far back as the 2oth of September. Twenty-six days have elapsed since then. If he had put these bags out at the small number of forty per day, he would have disposed of 1,040.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the hon. gentleman will allow me I did not say that 1,830 bags was the maximum. 1 said we had given at least 1,830 bags to the ' Star ' people which were used for this purpose. That many we have track of, and my hon. friend will remember that his chief whip said that this stuff began on the 20tli of September.


Edward Frederick Clarke: He did not say ' stuff.'


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He said that this stuff began to leave Montreal on the 20th of September and had come at the rate of from fifty to one hundred bags per day-not forty. That would make nearly 3,000.


Robert Laird Borden: I have been informed as to the number, of documents sent here from time to time, and according to that information 1,830 bags would cover absolutely everything that has come from Mr. TAYLOR.
Montreal from first to last. I have not counted them but have made some inquiry, and I believe that that is an outside estimate. I know that about 500,000 copies of these documents have been sent out and there are about 300 in each bag. That would be under the estimate which the Postmaster General made this afternoon of 1,830 bags. But if you can distribute 3,000 bags in the course of one week from one newspaper office how is it that from the 25th of September up to the present you have made so little progress in disposing of these bags ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If my hon. friend will allow me, I will give the reason. The bags that are sent by the ' Star ' newspaper containing its own papers are made up and directed to the post office of each town where the matter is to be delivered. No sorting takes place. Those thousands .of bags are not handled on the cars but go as freight or baggage. They do not go in the postal cars at all.


Samuel Hughes: But they go in Lhe post office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: They do not.


Samuel Hughes: They do when they reach their destination.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: That is another matter. We are talking about sending them out.


Adam Carr Bell: Are they not in the possession and under the charge of the Post Office Department the moment they are put on the train ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Certainly, but we are speaking of the work of handling the mail on the cars, and my hon. friend, the leader of the opposition desires to know the exact facts. A newspaper like the * Star ' delivers every day to the railways a large number of bags containing newspapers. Each of these bags is directed to a particular town, and there is no sortation on the cars of the contents. They are not handled in the postal cars at all. They are put into the baggage car so that there is no more difficulty in handling a bag containing 200 or 500 newspapers than in handling a trunk. But each bag of the mail matter to which we are now referring contains many separate pieces. These have to be sorted on the train. The bags of postal matter are put upon the car. When the train starts the clerks have to pour out the contents of the bags upon the table, examine the direction upon each separate piece and put it in the bag for its destination. A considerable space is required in the postal car for the convenience of the officers engaged in that sortation. Therefore, the matter cannot be handled wholesale, as in the case of newspapers going from the office of publication, but must be handled retail, each separate article being subject to separate treatment.



* COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
1457C
Robert Laird Borden: I am obliged tc the Postmaster General for that explana tion. But I understood that, so far as large cities are concerned, the bags have already been so made up.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: But still the bags have to be opened In the postal car and their contents examined, because in very few instances do the bags contain only matter for a particular post office.


Robert Laird Borden: I think that any difficulty as to that might have been obviated when the bags were filled. If the authorities in the Post Office Department or the post office authorities of the House of Commons had intimated to those engaged in this work that it would be more convenient if the mail matter for a particular place were put in a bag by itself, that would have been done, and that, very likely, would facilitate the work very much. The explanation of the Postmaster General seems to make it abundantly plain that there is no work at all for the Ottawa post office in all this; the work is on the mail car. So far as the Ottawa post office is concerned, it is simply a question of storage, and surely the resources of the government should have enabled them to overcome any difficulty as to storage room. Let me point out this fact to the Postmaster General- that if in Ottawa a paper were to commence publication having a circulation of
15.000	or 20,000, it would give His Majesty's mails more matter to handle than that caused by the distribution of this literature. Yet, I am sure, the Postmaster General would hardly likely stand up in this House and say that the whole mail service in Ottawa would be paralyzed by the mere fact of a newspaper of that magnitude beginning publication here. And let me say also that I am informed-I do not know with what truth, and perhaps we had better have a statement about it if any minister of the Crown is in a position to make known the facts-that the equivalent of twenty-five bags of mall matter has been sent out by m.v lion, friends on the other side as campaign literature every day for the last six or eight weeks. If that has been going on, let us attribute the congestion to that to which it is really due. Let the Postmaster General not send forward the twenty-five or thirty bags of literature on his side, and keep back ours, and then say that the congestion is due to the literature sent out from this side.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: On that point, I would like to correct my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax). I have no control over the postmaster of the House of Commons. And, so far as I know, no person has sought in any way to direct or interfere with his actions. You, Mr. Speaker, who have jurisdiction on behalf of the House in these matters. I am sure, , have not interfered Sir WILLIAM MULOCK.
w.ith the postmaster in the proper discharge of his duties. The postmaster has discharged his duties as he thought best and if he is showing partiality, as an officer of the House lie is amenable to the discipline of the House. But I am sure there is no foundation for the suggestion that literature from one side has received preference or priority over the other. There has been the utmost fairness, and no partiality has been shown.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not accusing any officer of partiality or unfairness. But I am credibly informed by those who profess to know what they speak about that mail matter equivalent to twenty-five bags a day has been sent out by my hon. friends opposite for the last six or eight weeks.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: And by my hon. friends on that side.


Robert Laird Borden: The result of that is a certain congestion.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Caused by both sides.


Robert Laird Borden: That is exactly what I am coming to. But, up to the present time, we have been (old that it has been caused by the literature sent out by this side. And we have heard of the scandalous abuse of the franking privilege, and so on. Let us understand that both sides arc. engaged in the work of propagating their political views by sending out their campaign literature during the session of parliament under franks. But, when that occasions congestion, let us not have ministers standing up in the House and accusing members on this side of causing that congestion, and let us not have a stoppage, and the piling up of that literature in these corridors, the stoppage applying only to the literature from this side. That is all we ask. We simply desire that our rights in that regard shall be the same as those of others, that there shall not be all this comment and excitement because we are doing what is quite within our right to do, and what hon. gentlemen on the other side are doing in exactly the same way, and, as I believe on a very much larger scale.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Oh, no. The hon. gentleman does not believe that.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, I will take my hon. friend's word that it is not greater. There is another remark as to how this mail matter accumulates. It came in by mail up to the time we were driven to send it by express, which we did until the express company were threatened, as I am informed, with prosecution for carrying matter that should be sent by mail-it lias come here in some way without great apparent difficulty ; but it is only when we try to send it away from here that the congestion is caused. The

explanation of my hon. friend as to the necessity of sorting on t lie train accounts for it in part. But, even with that explanation,' I do not see that there should be the congestion which is said to have resulted merely through our effort to send out what seems to me a very moderate amount of campaign literature. I do not think it is desirable to have this condition of affairs continue. It seems to me that means could be found to prevent this congestion. I am sure that my hon. friend the Postmaster General and the Prime Minister, if they should have this conference spoken of a little while ago, will devise some means by which a result will be arrived at satisfactory to all the members of the House. And I shall be glad if when my right hon. friend (Rt. Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has arrived at a conclusion with regard to it, he will give a statement as to what we may expect on this question which has already occupied a considerable length of time.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: The unfortunate thing about this debate is, that the employees of this House will be encouraged to treat members of parliament with disrespect. I think members of parliament, on both sides, should stand together, to preserve the respect due to this House. By so doing we maintain the honour of the people of Canada. I am persuaded, that the conduct of the Postmaster General will give the employees of the House the impression, that they can treat members of the opposition with less respect than they show to members supporting the government. It would be unworthy and dishonourable for members of this House to occupy that position, not because they are members of the government side of the opposition, but because they represent the constituencies of this country. So far as service is due by members of parliament, I do not make the slightest distinction between those who support the government and those who support the opposition.
Now, I want to say first that I think the Prime Minister should apologize to our leader. I am not inclined to make unkind remarks. In taking part in the debates of this House I have always endeavoured to exercise courtesy. If a man is not strong enough to say what he wants to say in measured language, then he is not a very strong man. Now, I think the Prime Mini-ister should apologize to the leader of the opposition for saying, as he did this morning, that the language used by the leader of the opposition was unworthy of himself. 1 think the language of the leader of the opposition was mild and measured in the extreme. If we have any complaint to make on this side against the leader of the opposition it is that he always fights with gloves when he fights the hon. gentlemen opposite, that he is too courteous to the gentlemen who sit opposite. After that has
been the leading feature of his conduct towards the government, it strikes me that the Prime Minister was not well advised when he made that remark. I think the language is peculiarly unworthy of the Prime Minister himself. It is cutting language, and I would not have blamed the leader of the opposition if he had resented it with much more lire and spirit than he did. But with his usual courtesy he permitted the Prime Minister to go almost scott free. I do not propose to do that, and I wish the Prime Minister to apologize to the leader of the opposition for departing from the traditional good manners that should characterize a Prime Minister of Canada.
Now, the Prime Minister said that he had occupied that room when in opposition and he never complained. He ought to have complained. If he, the leader of the opposition, was shut up in that little room, he ought to have had more respect for his position and he should have complained. I am going to complain, and I will never stop complaining until every member of this House is treated with proper respect. When I am at home-and I think it is the same with reference to every other gentleman-I have a house, I have an office, where, if a gentleman wishes to consult me privately, he can do so. I have typewriters, an office fitted up with the usual appliances to enable me to attend to the business of my clients. When I come here I come representing 25,000 people of the county of Colchester, whose business I have to attend to, and how am I treated here ? I have no room, I have not the slightest opportunity to do the business that is imposed upon me. But I do not wish to be a loafer, I wish to work and perform the duties that are cast upon me. But when I come here, I am encouraged to be a loafer and an idler. I am put into a large room which is more like a club-room, where there are eight, or ten, or twenty gentlemen smoking and talking together. How can I do the business of
25,000	people in such quarters as that V Yet that is the accommodation that is furnished to me, and I am going to tell the people of Colchester that this government and this parliament are to blame for it. that this government treats myself and treats them with the utmost disrespect in neglecting to furnish me with a private apartment in which I can do the business of my county. Up in this part of country it appears that only the ministers are supposed to have any business to do. I am charged with responsibilities as well as they are, and I want some place assigned to me in which I can do the business of my constituents. As it is, T had to go into the library and crave from the librarian the courtesy of an alcove in which to do the business of a member of parliament. But it is far from being a place to do business in, because you are interrupted. A gentle-

1458a
man who is accustomed to work wants privacy. But we are deprived of all that and it is only the ministers who have apartments.
When we appoint a judge of the Supreme Court/ of Canada we assign him two or three rooms in which to do his business. It is not nearly as important that he should have two or three rooms as it is for a member of parliament. A judge of the Supreme Court does not deal with the interests of more than 200 or 300 suitors in a year. I have charged upon me the interests of 25,000 suitors in this parliament. Why should we give a judge a couple of rooms in which to do his business, and not assign one room to a member of parliament, who has vastly more important duties ? I charge upon the members of this parliament, who have represented this country for the last thirty years, in having been derelict to their duty in allowing themselves to be treated with absolute disrespect. The members of this House should supply themselves first of all with accommodation. If we appoint a clerk he is at once given a room of his own. See what contumely is heaped upon the members of this House in treating them with less respect than a clerk. We appoint a man to a position and give him a salary of $1,200 or $1,500 a year. Do we ask him to sit out on the green to do his business ? Do we ask him to sit on one of these bags ? No, we do not, we assign him a room. Why, the very instant we employ the meanest clerk in the House of Commons we assign him a room. They have intelligence enough, but it is impossible for any one to do work without a room, therefore, we assign the meanest employee a room of his own. I blame the members of parliament for permitting this indignity to be heaped upon them-the members of parliament on both sides of the House, and not only of this parliament, but of all preceding parliaments.
I desire to say further that I think the Postmaster General has been led into this difficulty through listening to over zealous partisans. For my part I would be a long time in this House, I would be ten years in this House, going up and down these corridors, before I would make a complaint to anybody about these bags. They are piled up there, and if some gentleman in going home late at night feeling tired and sick, passing between those tiers of bags on each side of him, it would be an assistance to him, in case any accident happened, to find a soft bed on which to fall. There should not be very much complaint. Why should any gentleman going through those corridors object to these bags being there unless he were a partisan ? I undertake to say that the hon. Postmaster General allowed himself to be used by some ungracious partisan on his side who went to him and represented to him that he should interfere with the opposition in the pursuit Mr. GOURLEY.
of their duty. He pulled his leg, as it were, and instead of telling this partisan that he did not want to interfere with the opposition, the hon. Postmaster General listened to him and became a partisan himself. X do not believe that hon. gentlemen opposite sympathize with the hon. Postmaster General. I believe there is too much courtesy and refinement amongst hon. gentlemen od-posite to sympathize with anything like this mean partisanship which has been shown in connection with this matter. I regret this partisanship very much. There are partisans on both sides but the leading men of the party on both sides ought to be strong enough to teach them better manners. The hon. Postmaster General says that a complaint was made by a newspaper in Montreal. Then he is the victim of the mere jealousy of some newspaper in Montreal. Some newspaper is perhaps jealous of the ' Star ' and wants to give the ' Star ' some trouble in respect to its mail matter. The hon. Postmaster General should have told the newspapers to settle their jealousies between themselves, that the urgent need of more mail bags will pass away in two or three days, and he should not have permitted himself to have been drawn into the matter in the way in which he has been. That hon. gentleman represents the dignity of this House in some measure and in some measure the dignity of the country and he should not have permitted himself to have been dragged into a mere petty quarrel between some newspapers in Montreal. He should have been the first man to have stood up and fought for the dignity of this House. He should have said that the members of this House had privileges. I charge the hon. Postmaster General with not standing up for the dignity of this House. It is the duty of every member of this House to preserve the dignity of those on both sides, A minister ought not to be a partisan when it comes to preserving the respect of the people for this House. I will always stand up for the respect which is due to this House. We should have respect for ourselves. We should conduct our debates with courtesy and decency and we should stand together in the preservation of our rights in order that the country may respect us and respect parliament. I think the hon. Postmaster General forgot himself when this newspaper came to him and made the complaint to which he refers. When this newspaper complained to him that they had not sufficient bags, the hon. Postmaster General should have inquired into the matter and if he found out that members of parliament in the exercise of their franking privilege had used up the supply of bags he should have said to that newspaper:	Wait, your business is
private. You have a little private newspaper to run. The bags are being used by members of parliament for the dissemination of public information all over the

country, which is more important than the dissemination of any private newspaper. If he had had any self respect he would have said on behalf of this House that the privileges of a member of parliament are superior to the privileges of a newspaper. The hon. Postmaster General said that a manufacturer in some small country town could not get his manufacturing circulars sent through the post office for three days because the post office was occupied by literature sent out by members of parliament. I undertake to say that such a statement is an insult to this parliament. He should have told that manufacturer that it was our duty to send out literature to the country rather than that the post office should be occupied with the literature that he desired to send out. I take the ground that it is our duty to send out literature. The people in my constituency are complaining because there is no literature sent out. They say that the members of parliament are lazy and that we are not performing our duty if we do not send out literature while we are here. The people pay the bills, they have a right to have literature sent to them and it is the first duty of the Post Office Department to send out'literature from this House for the purpose of educating the people. If the government have a wise policy they should be the first to want literature sent out, because, if their policy is wise, the literature we send out will only exhibit that policy in a better light. Therefore, if I were supporting a government which I believed to be a strong government I would urge the opposition to send out literature, because, if the policy of the government were a desirable one, the opposition would make out a weak case. The people are just as competent to criticise an argument as we are and in many cases there are many more intelligent men outside of this House than there are inside of it. While there is a fair proportion of intelligence inside of this House there are many men outside of this House who are far in advance in the matter of intelligence than men inside of this House. Hon. gentlemen opposite should not interfere with political organization but they should rather encourage us.


Lawrence Geoffrey Power: Order.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: One or two hon. gentlemen of ill manners can make a noise. They should encourage us in our organization. They should give us every facility for organization because this country is governed by parties and it is in the highest interests of the country that every bit of knowledge that can assist the electors in arriving at the verdict as to which party shall rule the country should be presented to their minds. Every bit of information should be scattered broadcast. That is the basis of the franking privilege. The franking privilege is the privilege of the people. It is not my privilege, it is not the privilege of any other hon. member, but it is the privilege of the people to get literature from this parliament free, because, if you charged the cost of sending out literature to an individual member, it would he impossible for him to send it out. Therefore, the people have wisely decreed that members of parliament shall have the liberty of sending out literature through the country free. Recollect you put into our hands the most powerful weapon when we can go to the country and say : You dare not allow us to exercise the privilege of sending out literature, because your crimes and misconduct are such that you do not want them to be known. Consequently I for one would say that the lion. Postmaster General should get up, recall every order that lie has given and if necessary order
5,000	bags to-night. What is the cost of a few bags compared with this attack upon the privileges of parliament ? And if necessary he should have a few extra postal cars. If the hon. Postmaster General were a business man rather than have this matter exploited he would have ordered 5,000 additional bags and hired some postal cars and had this literature removed from day to day. Surely the Post Office Department of Canada is strong enough to remove this literature. What a confession that after six yeArs of administration by the hon. Postmaster General the post office service has become so inefficient, so impotent, so weak, that it is impossible to move a few hags of mail from the corridors of this House.
I did not think that the Post Office Department had been so emaciated by the administration of the hon. Postmaster General as to leave it in this unhappy state. I think the hon. Postmaster General should give instructions at once, no matter what it costs, to have these corridors cleared and to have the stuff transmitted through the mails. I think also that the right hon. leader of the government should apologize to my hon. friend the leader of the opposition and that the hon. Postmaster General should apologize to the House for this serious attack upon the privileges of every member of parliament.


The PRIME MINISTER.: With the desire that we should endeavour to proceed with the business of the House, I have had a conference with my hon. friend the Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock), and he Informs me that he has ordered 1,000 bags. They cannot be made in *i day, but they will be made on short notice. If my hon. friend (Mr. Borden) will allow me to proceed with the businesss of the House, I can confer with him, and I think we can come to a satisfactory arrangement.


Robert Laird Borden: That will be satisfactory.
Motion (Mr. Borden, Halifax) to adjourn the House negatived.



SUPPLY-QUESTION OP PRIVILEGE BY MR. WALTER SCOTT.

[Stage Direction]
Tlie MINISTER OP FINANCE moved that the House again go into Committee of Supply.
Mr. WALTER SCOTT (West Assiniboia).: Before you leave the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. In one of these sheets of that campaign literature, which has been the subject of debate all day, I find that I am charged with the serious offence of lowering the tone of debate in this House. There is an article headed :
' Lowering the tone of debate; Liberal backbenchers resort to abusive tactics and barroom politics.' This sheet is gotten up in a form that might lead some people to believe that it was a veritable official document; it has the national coat of arms at its head, and it would almost remind one of the celebrated proclamation once isssued to the Indians instructing 'them how to cast their ballots.


Mr. EMMERSON.: Or the bogus ' Globe.'


Thomas Walter Scott: Or the bogus ' Globe,' as my bon. friend says. I and some other members of the House are charged with lowering the tone of debate and degrading this parliament-I presume that the' exhibition we have seen to-day from gentlemen opposite is calculated to restore the tone of debate. Those of us who are charged with this offence have, according to this sheet, precipitated a crisis in this country, and the people are called to arms on account of that crisis in national politics. And why is this ? It is because one lion, gentleman on this side called an official of a railway company 'a red-headed boy'; because another hon. gentleman applied the term ' a raw young person ' to some one outside of the House ; because it was said that one hon. gentleman ' displayed his ignorance ' ; and because the words ' intellectual paralysis ' were used in another case. The fact that these epithets were applied has, according to this sheet, brought on a crisis in our national affairs, and in consequence the saving remnant of the people are called to arms. My own offence is that I made reference to certain railway companies, namely, the Qu'-Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan and the Calgary and Edmonton Companies, in connection with which I made an allusion to my hon. friend from West Toronto (Mr. Osier). I wish to explain my position, in face of this charge which must be considered somewhat serious. I wish to state that when I referred to the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) I did not mean to reflect in the slightest degree upon his honesty or personal honour. I have some right to complain that a disposition has been shown on the part of some members of this House, and on the part of a section of the press,, as well as in this campaign document, to read into the


Robert Laird Borden: words I used a meaning w'liich these words were not intended to convey, and which I do not believe they do convey. On the contrary, I would like to have permission to state, with regard to my bon. friend (Mr. Osier), that I believe he holds his public position in this country at a very considerable personal and financial sacrifice, as do many other members of this House. It is an encouraging thing that men of bis calibre, men of very extensive business interests, are found willing to sacrifice their personal and financial convenience to hold public positions. I repeat that I did not make, and that I do not intend to make any reflection on the honour or honesty of my hon. friend from West Toronto. My reference to him was made in perfect good faith. Beyond having verified from the reports of the Department of Railways and Canals the figures on which my reference was based I had not, however, immediately before making the reference, looked very closely into these particular matters. I thought they were matters of common knowledge, and 'while the direct and absolute way in w'hieh my statement was challenged by my hon. friend (Mr. Osier) left me no recourse but to retract, it did surprise me exceedingly. Later I took occasion to examine into such of the facts as were available to me. The House lias had some notice of this by the series of questions which some days ago I put upon the Order paper. I had, nevertheless, concluded to make no further reference to the matter until the serious charge against me in this campaign sheet was called to my attention. I think the House will agree with me that the very widespread accusation which is made in this sheet-stating that my personal conduct has been such as to degrade parliament-renders it incumbent on me to set myself right. I trust that the facts which I will endeavour very briefly to place before the House will lead my hon. friend from West Toronto to set me in the right with regard to his accusation that 1 had knowingly and wilfully made a false accusation against him. On looking further into the case, I found these facts: First, notwithstanding that by law railway bondholders' mortgages are required to'be deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, no such document with respect to the Qu'-Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan is in that office. I have, therefore, been unable to verify the assertions of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Osier) with respect to that particular railroad. I find, however, that in the statutes of 3890 (chap. 82), confirming the agreement made between the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskacbewan Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, subclause (E) of section 1 of this agreement, sets out :
The company shall not issue any bonds, secured directly or indirectly on its land subsidies or any portion of such land subsidies.
*

My hon. friend (Mr. Osier) declared, if I understood him aright, that the $3,809,140 bond issue of that company, was only floated by the additional pledge of the total land subsidy. That statement of his, and the clause of the agreement, do not appear to harmonize, and some further explanation from the hon. gentleman would be in order. I may point out that there is another rather suspicious looking clause in the agreement, which is to be found in chapter 82 of the statutes of 1890. 'Subclause (C) of section 3 of the agreement sets out as follows :
It is understood and declared that the Qu'Ap-pel'le Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railway Company may transfer one half of its land subsidy to any person or persons as it may deem proper.
However, as I said, the mortgage is not deposited in the office of the Secretary of State, and I was able to find no particular facts with regard to that road or that company. But by chapter S4 of the statutes of 1890, in an Act to incorporate the Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company, I find that the name of my hon. friend the junior member for West Toronto- (Mr. Osier) appears amongst the names of those incorporated as the company to whom we voted 6,400 acres of land per mile for 340 miles of road, and to whom we granted $1,600,000 in cash, in twenty equal annual payments. Now, I find also, in the mortgage deed of the Calgary and Edmonton bondholders, this provision :
It is, however, expressly understood that the land grant fro-m the government shall be excepted from the operation of the said mortgage and shall form no part of the security for the payment of the said bonds or the interest thereon.
Now, I appeal to my hon. friend if the discrepancies between these matters of record and what I understood him to state on a former occasion in this House are not sufficient to at least call for some further explanation from him. He stated, if I understood him accurately, that he was not one of those who obtained tin? new Calgary and Edmonton charter in 1890, but, on the contrary, I find that his name appears in the Act. I also understood him to state that in order to raise the amount of money- the exact sum was $5,474,513-which was the proceeds of the Calgary and Edmonton bonds, the land grant had to be pledged to form part of the security, or. as he put it. the land grant was sold with the bonds for the above sum. Now, the clause in the mortgage which I have read would seem to indicate that the contrary was the fact.
Let me give my hon. friend a very brief analysis of the figures of this contract. The proceeds of the bonds sale in connection with the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and. Saskatchewan Railway were $3,809,140, while the cost of the road was $2,539,600. There is a balance there of $1,269,540, which my hon. friend explained was left in the hands
of bankers to guarantee six years' interest. By my calculation six years' interest at 6 per cent upon the amount of the bonds would be $1,371,288. The surplus as between the proceeds of the bonds and the actual cost of the road was $1,209,540, so that upon the money raised by- the bonds there would appear to be a shortage in this matter of interest for six years of $101,748. Does my hon. friend contend that it took a land grant of 1,619,200 acres to cover this deficiency of, roundly, $100,000, which appears to be the shortage in the six years' interest ?
The results with regard to the Calgary and Edmonton are very similar. The proceeds of the bonds were $5,474,513, while the actual cost of the road appears by the records in the Railway and Canals Department to have been S3.743.562. There is a surplus there of $1,730,951, which, as my hon. friend said; was left in the hands of bankers. At 6 per cent, six years' interest upon the total bond issue would amount to $1,970,820. and to cover that amount there was a surplus between the bond issue and the actual cost of the road of $1,730,951, so there would be a shortage there from the amount necessary to cover the interest of about $240,000 in round numbers. I ask. with regard to this, does my hon. friend contend that a land grant of 1.8S8.000 had all to be pledged to cover this $240,000 : and if so. what became of the paid-up capital stock, which on the Calgary and Edmonton road, is put at an amount of $1,000,000? I shall send these figures and calculations over to my hon. friend, and he will be able to see whether or not they are accurate.
It certainly appears to me to be almost impossible that it should have been found necessary to pledge the whole land grant to provide for these comparatively small amounts of money. If the land grant were not pledged, as appears to be indicated by the clause of the mortgage which 1 have read, then the question is, what became of the land grant ? On looking into this phase of the matter, I have found that of the land grant earned by the Calgary and Edmonton Company ail area of 1,139,700 acres has already been patented, and to whom ? The railway company, of which my hon. friend, I believe, is a member, has secured patents on 215,816 acres. Nominees of the railway company have secured 57,576 acres. The firm of Osier, Hammond & Nanton have secured patents for 25,140 acres. Mr. James Ross has received patents for 41,130 acres. Assignees of Mr. Ross have received 105 acres. The Calgary and Edmonton Land Company has received the greatest amount, it has received patents for 792,799 acres, and 'assignees of the land company have been given patents for 12,510 acres. Now, as I pointed out, the land company has obtained the big slice, nearly SOO.OOO acres, which, in my opinion, is worth $2,500,000 to-day if it is worth a cent. I found fur-

tlier that my hon. friend is a member and a director of this Calgary and Edmonton Land Company, which is a different concern from the railway company. He appears to be a member of both the railway and the land company, both of which have participated, as I have shown, in the land grant.
Let me go over this ground again briefly. The Calgary and Edmonton Railway actually cost $3,743,572, which, I may remark, my hon. friend assured the House on a former occasion, was every bit paid in cash. The bond issue was $18,500.per mile for 300 miles ; this appears in the mortgage deed. But the actual proceeds of the bonds seem to have been only $5,474,513, being roundly $75,000 less than their apparent par value. Between the proceeds and the cost of the road there Is a difference of $1,730,951. This sum my hon. friend said-and I believe him implicitly-was left with the banks as a guarantee of the payment of interest-and I have shown that the annual interest at 6 per cent would amount to only $328,470-so that this surplus would evidently, with the exception of a shortage of only about $240,000, meet the total interest of 6 per cent for the whole period of six years.
Let me remark further that considering the fact that these bonds were put on the market with the virtual assurance to the purchasing public on the other side that the Canadian Pacific Railway would, in a certain number of years, take them up at the price of 110, and considering further that the full interest for six years was guaranteed, less only a matter of $240,000, these bonds must have been satisfactory to the purchasing public. Surely that guarantee ought to have been considered ample. In the last annual report of the Canadian Pacific Railway, I find the fact recorded that the total bond issue of the Calgary and Edmonton Company has been taken up by the Canadian Pacific Railway at par, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway has further paid $500,000 for the paid up capital stock of $1,000,000, which my hon. friend, on a former occasion, told the House was not all paid in cash originally; and at all events, both the bondholders and the railway company seem to have come out of the deal very successfully, wholly apart from the land grant. I have no wish to go further Into the merits of this matter or to press it any further, but I would ask my hon. friend to do me the justice of admitting that these facts-which I believe are facts and which I only had in a general way in my mind when making my first allusion-go to show that I did not knowingly and wilfully make any false accusation against him.


Mr. E. B. OSLER (West Toronto).: I did not intend to make any reply to this renewed attack upon me, coming at this time of the session. I can hardly understand it. I have explained very fully my connection with this road. I have pointed out where Mr. SCOTT.
the figures that have been quoted are wrong. I explained that the land was sold with the bonds to a syndicate, which is a very common way of doing these transactions, and that the whole money realized was expended on the construction of the road and in paying the interest. The only point I would make now in reply is regarding my previous statement, which might be misconstrued, from tiie fact that my name is on the directorate of the present Calgary Railway Company. I made the statement that I was not directly or indirectly connected with the inception of either the Saskatchewan and Long Lake or the Calgary and Edmonton Road. I was not a promoter, in any shape or form, of either of those roads. I came in after the original promoters had failed, and at the request of the late Sir John Macdonald. When I spoke on a previous occasion, I did not know thoroughly the history of the older incorporations ; but Mr. Nicol Kingsinill, K.C., whose name is well known to this House, and who had been connected with those two roads long before I had anything to do with them, has given me the following memo concerning their origin and inception :-
October 19th, 1903.
E. B. Osier, Esq.. M.P.,
Toronto Club,
Toronto, Ont.
My Dear Osier.

Re Qu'Appelle, Long Lake & Saskatchewan Railway Company.
This company was formed by an amalgamation with the South Saskatchewan Valley Railway Company, a list of the directors of which I now inclose also ; a list of the incorporators of the Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskatchewan Railroad and Steamboat Company.
I was employed by the late Senator Mac-Innes and Mr. Andrew Onderdonlc to endeavour to get the assistance of the government to this railway, after the first 25 miles had been built.
The affairs of the company were in a very low condition financially, and Mr. Onderdonk had been called in by the late Senator Mac-Innes to endeavour to undertake the construction of the railway. Mr. Onderdonk made an offer to the government, but no arrangement was made, and it was. if I mistake not, some time subsequent to this that you lent your assistance and carried the railway to completion. I was acting for the contractors who constructed the road, but in this you had no interest.
Re Calgary and Edmonton Railway Company :
As regards this company, as you are aware,. I was one of the incorporators, and have been upon its board ever since until two or three months ago, when it was passed over to the Canadian Pacific Railway ; and I am also aware of all the circumstances which preceded its construction.
The Calgary and Edmonton was preceded by a line called ' The Alberta and Athabasca Railway Company,' incorporated July 20, 1885. The name of this company was changed afterwards to 'The Northwestern Railway Company of Canada,' in 1889. The original incorporators are on the memorandum I inclose, and the directors added by the Act of 1899, you will also find on such memorandum. This company was brought before capitalists in

England, and Praed's Bank were interested in it ; one of the Lloyds was sent out to make an examination, and reported so favourably that it was supposed they would be able to finance the transaction ; they had a large land subsidy, but no cash subsidy ; the land subsidy was 10,000 acres a mile. After attempting to finance the matter, they finally failed;
I know this personally, as I went and saw the Praed people in London, and received a letter from them stating that they had been unable to do anything and must withdraw.
After this occurred the government, who were exceedingly anxious that the line to Edmonton should be constructed, as a preventive to further troubles with the Indians, asked Mr. Ross to take up the project, and the Act incorporating this railway company was applied for and obtained at the instigation and request of the government of the Dominion; this I am personally aware of, as I had the conduct of the negotiations with the government at the time, and the making of the contract. It was, if I mistake not, at this juncture, that you first had anything to do with the-transaction ; and you and Mr. Ross went to England and raised the necessary money. The government were so anxious that this railway should be constructed that they passed the original Order in Council for the subsidy, subject to the sanction of parliament, before such sanction was obtained, and it was upon this order that the financial arrangements in England were commenced.
These facts are shown in the draft petition of right which we were about filing against the government, for the purpose of obtaining a settlement of the land grant, a settlement which was afterwards made. I inclose you a draft of the suggested petition of right, the value to you of which will be that you can absolutely depend upon any statement that is made in this draft being correct, it having been made up for the purpose of having the opinion of counsel. There is a good deal of it which is merely historical, and has relation to the land dispute with the government. Be good enough to send me back this printed draft petition of right in the Exchequer Court, as it is the only copy I have.
Trusting that this will supply the information you needed, believe me,
Yours very faithfully,
(Sgd.) VICAL KINGSMILL.
South Saskatchewan Valley Railway Company, Incorporated by 43 Victoria, Chapter 66, assented to May 7, 1880.
Names of persons incorporated :-Andrew Robertson, Donald Maclnnis, John Ross, M. H. Cochrane, Duncan McIntyre, J. R. Thibaudeau, James Turner.
Qu'Appelle, Long Lake and Saskathewan Railroad and Steamboat Company, incorporated by 46 Victoria, Chapter 72, assented to May 25,1883.
Names of persons incorporated :-Robert Doull. William B. Searth, Oliver T. Stone, John A. Mackenzie, J. J. Foy, Edgar Dewdney, Gilbert R. Pugsley.
Alberta and Athabasca Railway Company, incorporated by 48 and 49 Victoria, Chapter 8S, assented to July 20, 1885.
Names of persons incorporated :-Henry B. Beard, George F. Jackson, William W. Huntingdon, John S. McEwen, Louis Sands, Arthur T. H. Williams, R. P. Russell. A. B. Nettle-ton, Samuel P. Snider, C. C. Colby.
Directors added by the Act, assented to April 16, 1889, 52 Victoria, Chapter 65 :-
Mackworth Bulkley Praed, John Maurice Lloyd, John Dale and James Lloyd, all of London, Eng.; Charles T. Drummond, William White, and C. C. Colby.
I do not wish to take up the time of the House at present. The facts are as I have stated. My previous statements to my connection with these companies, and as to the disposition of the land and of the money received, is absolutely correct; and so far from being a company promoter, so far from my having had anything to do with the original conception of that road, that road was forced upon the attention of Mr. Ross and myself afterwards by the late Sir John Macdonald. I shall not weary the House with going into this long petition of rights, but I may say that it contains letters from Sir John Macdonald to Mr. Ross urging him to take the road up and to go forward at once on the Order in Council, andpro-misingthat a subsidy would be voted by parliament, and declaring that he would be perfectly justified in submitting his proposition to the capitalists in London. That was done, and the securities were disposed of as X have said, and the money realized from the securities provided for the construction of the railway and for the payment of the interest on the bonds and other debts. Two years ago, when this matter was brought up, I explained very fully my connection with the company. I have only to repeat that every statement I made with respect to that road isl absolutely correct.



SOUTH AFRICAN WAR-PENSIONS.

Andrew Broder: Before leaving the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring a matter before the House which should have received the attention of the government before this time, the question of some additional pension to those who served in South Africa and suffered more or less disability. I am sorry to think that men in that position in this country have remained three years without receiving any consideration at the hands of the government. I do not at all advocate that the people of any country should be induced, by what may be offered' in the sense of recognition of service, to enlist in the ranks of the army ; but I think that the people's gratitude should be expressed towards those who have risked life and limb in defence of the common rights. I have in my own constituency a case which certainly is deserving of more recognition than it has so far been given by the government. I refer to Trooper Mulloy, blind Trooper Mulloy, a boy born and brought up in the county I have the honour to represent. I have known his family for years. They are in every sense respectable, deserving people; and this young man, who is a man of more than ordinary ability, ambitious, active and fairly well educated, went into the South African war and suffered total disability by loosing

tile sight of both eyes. He receives, from the British government a pension of G5 cents per day. That is altogether inadequate for the maintenance of an individual in this country. He is now pursuing his course at college, endeavouring to get an education, that he may be able so far as possible, to take care of himself in the world. I am sure I do not appeal to this House in the way of charity on behalf of this young man and others like him ; but I appeal to the sense of justice of those who took the post of danger at the time of the country's trial. When he returned to Liver pool he made what I may call that Spartan speech, that for him the past had no regrets. And that speech has gone around the world wherever the English language is spoken, and it is echoing and re-echoin through this country to-day. That youug man is struggling without sight, endeavour ing to get an education that he may put himself, even though he has lost his sight, upon an equal footing with other men. And the government have given no attention to these cases-nothing has been done. I bring this forward not to criticise the government, but to try to impress upon them the idea that this is a thing that should be attended to, and that the services of these young men should be recognized. We may talk as we please about this country abroad and in the eyes of the world, but the going of these young men from Canada did more to bring this country into prominence than any other thing that has been done in the last twenty-five years. I refer to Trooper Mu,lloy, not because I would single him out from among others who are also deserving, but because I am acquainted with all the circumstances of his case, and his ease teaches me how deserving all these others are. I am quite aware that these men are not in the same position as the young men, for instance, who went out at the time of the rebellion of 1885, and who received pensions, some of them receiving special treatment at the hands of the government. But, though they are not in the same position towards the Canadian government. I say they are just as deserving. The S >uth African question was a colonial question. It was a question involving the rights of the colonists which were invaded by those who had no right to invade them ; and those who went out to fight for Britain's cause in South Africa were fighting to maintain colonial interests as much as were the men who put down the rebellion in the North-west. I have here a return, brought down for the information of the House of Commons, showing those who received pensions because of disability resulting from services in 1885. I find that some received special treatment; for instance, Captain Peters received $1,0(10 a year. That was away above and beyond the ordinary rule.


Samuel Hughes: And he only lost an arm.


Andrew Broder: 


Andrew Broder: And, as the hon. member says, he only lost an arm, while Trooper Mulloy suffered total disability, and so deserves special treatment at the hands of the government. I am sure the country will bear out the Prime Minister in recognizing the claims of the men who served in South Africa, and I hope he will give this matter his attention at an early day. Three years, I am sure, is quite long enough for these young men to wait, querying whether or not they are to receive recognition from their country. An example has been set up by the people to the south of us. I do not say that we should follow that example. The American people are paying $138,000,000 a year now to men who were in the war of 1861-65. They Say to the men who took part in that war :	Even though
you may have only served in the ranks, your country remembers your service ; and if you are injured or suffer disability even in the ordinary avocations of life, you shall receive a pension. I do not say that I would advocate a similar course in this country, But their example teaches us a lesson. That country is permeated with patriotism so far ns American rights are concerned-and we have just had a lesson of that-and their soldiers know that the sympathy and help of their country can be depended upon. I want to say on behalf of these South African boys, that the people of this country, irrespective of party or race, I believe, are ready to support anything reasonable that the government may choose to do in recognition of their bravery.


Mr. FRANK OLIVER (Alberta).: I wish to support strongly every word that has been uttered by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat (Mr. Broder). Although he has spoken particularly of one case, he has included all cases. I am ready to support a special recognition of the particular ease he mentioned, and I hope there will be a general willingness to support a recognition of all cases of disability suffered by our soldiers in South Africa. I do not know that I can say anything more than he has said, and I do not think I can say it as well as he has said it. But I wish to emphasize everything he has said, and the way he has said it. I can perhaps speak the more feelingly on this matter, because as I have already taken occasion to inform the House, the constituency which I represent sent more men to South Africa than any other in the Dominion of Canada. There are men throughout that constituency who have suffered serious disability because of their patriotism, patriotism of the highest type. I do not wish to imply that the men who served in the North-west in 1885 were anything but soldiers and patriots of the highest character, but if there is any difference it is in favour of the men who went around the world to carry the British flag to victory. Certainly we owe much to those who sacrificed everything for imperial senti-

ment. So far as we were concerned we were in no material danger. But there was danger to the empire which we uphold. These men did not stop to consider the cost to themselves, and we should not stop to consider the cost to ourselves now. When these men went out it was a matter of pride to Canada to pay their wages, and I think it should be ten times more a matter of pride to Canada to see that those soldiers who did her such honour on that occasion and rendered the empire such signal service, should not be dependent on the pittance of pension which is derivable under the British army regulations. That pension list is framed with regard to a certain class of people, to the ordinary soldiers of the British army. But the conditions of the Birtish army and of the class of people who serve in the ranks of the regular army, are different from those which prevail in this country, and amongst the men who served Canada and the empire so well in South Africa, and will be demeaning ourselves if we fail to recognize those fellow-countrymen of ours who did us "such great credit; if we fail to recognize their service in some more liberal fashion than we have done so far in leaving them entirely to the support of the British pension list. That would be leaving them without any recognition at all on our part. I believe that without distinction of party, without distinction of race or creed, or anything else, the people of this country will be proud to grant a liberal compensation to every soldier who has suffered physical disability in performing military service in South Africa.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I wish to say a few words merely to indicate my hearty concurrence in every word that has been uttered by the two hon. gentlemen (Mr. Broder) and (Mr. Oliver) who have spoken on this subject. Loyalty and defence of one's country are two of the highest qualities of citizenship, and those who are prepared in the hour of danger to expose and even give up their lives in defence of their country are in my judgment deserving of the highest recognition we can pay them. No reward is too high, no return too great that we can make for their services. It is a well known fact that all civilized countries deal generously with those who perform military service in defence of their flag, and those who have been maimed or have suffered physically while performing military duties have special claims upon our gratitude. The British empire is noted the world over for the care it takes of its defenders. In this country many lives of our valuable citizens have been sacrificed in our defence, many also have been sacrificed in defending the empire where our own country was not directly involved. In both cases I think our soldiers deserve the fullest gratitude of their countrymen. Those who were unfortunate enough to suffer as poor Trooper Mulloy suffered by los-457
ing his eyesight, should be especial objects of our commiseration, of our sympathy and our care, and our government should show substantial evidence of our gratitude for what Mr. Molloy has done. It seems to me that it is a crying shame that he should be allowed to go through life without a special compensation, with only the sixty-five cents a day allowed him by the British pension list, and nothing at all from Canada. Has it come to this, that in this enlightened age of the world the only proof we show of our admiration for loyalty, and for those who have endangered their lives and suffered physicial disability in the defence of their country, is the pittance allowed them by the British pension list, and that we in Canada are to do nothing more to mark our gratitude for our own fellow-citizens who have rendered us such signal service ? To my mind every man who went out to South Africa, whether he took part in active hostilities or not, if he went out in defence of the empire and in the maintenance of its authority, should be dealt with by us in the most liberal fashion, and we should be prepared to show in some very substantial wray our recognition of the very valuable services they have rendered to their country.


Mr. W. A. GALLIHER (Yale and Cariboo).: I also desire to add a few words to what has been said by the hon. members who have spoken on this subject. I heartily concur in the remarks they have made. A number of men went out from my own district to the South African war, some of whom have returned and some of whom have lost their lives in that country. Among those who have returned there is now living in the town of Itossland a young man who was a very able "and efficient soldier and scout, and who went out both in the first and the second drafts. He has been practically disabled from the exercise of his ordinary calling in life by an accident in consequence of which the muscles of his left arm are withering. I think such a case deserves recognition at the hands of this government. The case mentioned by the hon. member for Dundas (Mr. Broder) is an exceptional case, and should be dealt with with exceptional generosity by this government. There are others whose services should also be recognized, although perhaps not as liberally.
I have no doubt that our government are fully alive to this question, and that they will deal liberally with these men who were so unfortunate as to have suffered in consequence of their loyalty, which impelled them to go forth to battle for the empire. There is another matter to which I wish to refer, and I feel a little delicacy in doing so for the reason that I myself was a member of the contingent w'hich went to Egypt and served in the campaign of 1884-5. While most of those who served in the rebellion of 1885 in Canada have received recognition by way of land grants from one or other of



the governments in Canada, no attention lias ever been paid to those who took part in the Soudan campaign of 1S84-5. If 1 were the only one concerned, I certainly would never mention it, but there are scattered throughout Canada many men who took part in that campaign, and I may say that they took a part that was creditable to themselves and creditable to Canada. They formed a very efficient corps of the British army engaged in the campaign of the Soudan. I think that while this question of recognizing the services of Canadians in South Africa is being and has been taken up by the government we should not forget those boys who served in an equally dangerous position, as any one knows who has run the cataracts of any waters, while at the same time being exposed to attack from the enemy. Their claim, I think, is one that should also be taken into consideration by the government. This is the first time I have mentioned it, and 1 think the occasion an opportune one to draw the attention of the government to the claim of these men, who, 1 think.it will be admitted, are deserving of some recognition.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not know that I can add anything to that which has been so well expressed by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder) and other gentlemen who have spoken, but I desire to say that, as far as I am concerned, I would heartily support any appropriation by the government for the purpose of doing what I think is no more than justice to these men who have suffered from the service which they have rendered to the country in South Africa. The case of Mr. Mulloy may be taken as an illustration. I have no doubt there are other cases that are equally deserving. I had an opportunity of meeting Mr. Mulloy when he came to Halifax for the purpose of receiving some instruction at a school for the blind in that city. I may say that I induced him to tell me the story of the occasion on which he lost his eyesight, and although it was told with a very great deal of modesty and not putting himself forward in any way, I felt very much impressed by the ability and gallantry which he displayed on that occasion, and I regard him as a man who is .eminently deserving of consideration at the hands of the government for the way in which he served his country then. We hailed the departure of these men for South Africa with a great deal of satisfaction. They were acclaimed by crowds cheering them on their departure, and they were met with like receptions upon their return. Taking the case of Mr. Mulloy; he has been deprived of that blessing of sight, a loss which will render liis life altogether different in the future from what it would have been. He is a man of great ability, a man who could have looked forward to a distinguished career in this country ; he has lost that most precious boon of Mr. GALLIHER.
eyesight in the service of his country, he is now practically incapable of earning his livelihood, he is left in that condition by the country for several years, and not one single dollar has ever been contributed by the country for the purpose of supporting or maintaining him. I do not think this is a condition of affairs which ought to make us proud of this country, and the sooner it is remedied the better. I am aware that the question of pensions might open up a very wide scope if we do not proceed upon some definite principle, but the case of Mr. Mulloy and other men who have incurred disability in South Africa, it seems to me can be dealt with without any danger at all to the public interest. It will impose no great burden upon the country, and any precedent which is fixed by dealing generously with these men will not be a dangerous one. I would very heartily support any measure introduced by the government for the purpose of doing what, as I have said before, is no more than simple justice to these men.


The PRIME MINISTER.: The case of Private Mulloy, which has been brought to the attention of the House by my hon. friend from Dundas (Mr. Broder), is one which can not but excite the sympathy of every man who is familiar with it. Private Mulloy not only showed himself to be a good soldier in the field, but he has borne the great misfortune which he sustained in the loss of his eyesight, with a courage and a fortitude which excites the admiration of every one who has been made aware of it. I think that the case of Private Mulloy should not be taken up separately. If we are to deal with this question we ought to deal with it as a whole instead of dealing with the case of one or other of those who have in a greater or less degree suffered in consequence of the discharge of then-duty to their country. When the colonies were invited by the British authorities in October, 1899. to take their share in the war in South Africa, the British government undertook to defray certain expenses and undertook at the same time to deal with .the matter of pensions. The British government have discharged their undertaking in that behalf, but, according to our notions on this side of the Atlantic, a pension which perhaps might be found adequate in England seems to us strangely inadequate. A pension of 65 cents a day in Canada is not at all -what we would expect under similar circumstances. At the same time, I believe it is a fact that the patriotic fund which was raised in 1899-1900, and which, as I understand, reached a pretty high figure, has been made use of for the relief of those who. like Private Mulloy, have suffered in the South African war.


Andrew Broder: 
The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not know how much he got, but I am under the im-

pression that he received something. I refer to this now, not by way of putting a bar against the application of my bon. friend, but simply as a circumstance taken into consideration at the proper time. I can only say to my hon. friend that on a previous occasion I stated, speaking for the government, that I thought the country woidd respond to any action which might be taken by us if we were to undertake to deal generously with those who had risked their lives in the war. The matter has been engaging the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence (Hon. Sir Frederick Borden). I am sorry he is not present to-day. In the rush of business of this long session, I am sorry to have to admit that for my part the matter has escaped my attention. I am sure it has not escaped the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Militia and Defence and probably at some day-I cannot say when


Andrew Broder: I intimated to the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence that I would bring it up in the House, and he was therefore aware that I intended speaking upon it,


The PRIME MINISTER.: I do not find fault with that. The Minister of Militia is absent to-day for a very good reason, but if he were present, he could have given the conclusion which he has reached on the subject. I shall make it my duty to call his attention to the matter, and to point out the sympathetic reception it has received from the members of this House.


Samuel Hughes: This is the third time this question has been brought before the House during the present session. It, however, was not in reference to this specific case of Private Mulloy, but with general reference to all those who have suffered disability in South Africa. ' I think tlie Prime Minister is right in saying that we cannot make Private Mulloy's case exceptional. I have had several interviews with the Minister of Militia and he has expressed himself as prepared to give a favourable consideration to the whole matter. I am pleased to hear the Prime Minister say that he endorses that idea. The approval of the hon. gentleman, of course guarantees its accomplishment. I would point out, that there are many who are partially disabled through the loss of an arm, a leg or one eye, and the money available from the patriotic fund is not at all sufficient to meet the requirements of these cases. I would remind the Prime Minister that, in addition to a moderate pension, these young gentlemen who are partially disabled could be employed in some suitable positions in the public service. In England, a society has been formed to get positions for army reserve men, and for those who have 'been partially disabled in war. and the employers of England are responding to the objects 457*
of the society in a very commendable mar. her. None of these young Canadians whc are partially disabled wish to avoid work, and I suggest now to the Prime Minister that positions might be found for them in the government service. The question of pensions generally, has engaged the attention of various nations. New Zealand has an efficient pension system not only for those who are disabled in the service of the empire, but for those who on account of old age are not able to work longer. The highest statesmen in England have proposed a scheme of old age pensions to be paid from the national resources. I believe that the Prime Minister will be endorsed by every member of this House if before the session closes, he will bring down an appropriation in the estimates to pay a pension to the comparatively few men who have been seriously disabled in the South African war. I aril delighted to know that my hon. friend (Mr. Gallilier) is one of the old Nile voyageurs, and I congratulate him on bringing the question of a land grant before the House. I trust that the government will give its careful attention to that matter. As an instance of the reasons which some people give for requiring a pension, I may say that an old gentleman came to me and told me that lie was out in '37 and '38, and he asked me to advance his claim. As a matter of fact he did'nt fight at all, but he had turned out for two days, and he thought lie was entitled to a pension. I asked him wbicli side he fought on, and he said he was on the side of the Loyalists, but I told him that his chances were better for getting some recognition, if he had supported the other side:	However that may be, this
nation should now turn its attention to compensating in some way, the men who have been disabled in the loyal defence of the empire. Probably there are not more than forty or fifty Canadians who have been permanently disabled in the late war, and I do not believe that one-thousandtli part of one per cent of the people of Canada would object to our granting these men pensions.


Mr. MONET.: Could the hon. gentleman tell me whether any one of these soldiers who fought in South Africa has received compensation from the insurance fund that we heard so much about in the session of 1900 from Sir Charles Tupper, who then led the opposition V


Samuel Hughes: I suppose at this date it is no harm to mention names, and I may state, that when I made an offer of troops for South Africa, Mr. Hugh Graham of the Montreal 'Star'-who has received so much attention to-day-wired me offering to pay an insurance of $1,000 on the life of each of the thousand men I was anxious to enrol. I understand, however, that this insurance was for loss of life ; I do not think it applied to disability.

14(300


Dominique Monet: I understand there was a scale of indemnity attached to it, which was to be granted for partial disablement.


Samuel Hughes: I do not know about that. I was fortunately not compelled to draw upon any such fund, but even if this fund did give an indemnity to men who were disabled, I do not think any one in Canada would object to their receiving in addition some recognition from the state.


Robert Laird Borden: I know of two cases quite near my own home, where this insurance referred to by the bon. gentleman (Mr. Monet) was paid.


Dominique Monet: Were these men disabled ?


Robert Laird Borden: They were killed.


Hon.   S@: In view of the general expression of opinion from all sides of this House, and the sincere sympathy expressed by the right hon. Prime Minister, it is unnecessary to add anything further to what has been said on the question. I listened, however, with regret, to the statement of the Prime Minister, that there was practically no hope of this question being solved this session, which I understand is rapidly drawing to a close. As the right hon. gentleman says the question is still in the hands of his ministers, and therefore not under the consideration of the government, it seems almost hopeless to expect that it will be brought to an end and that any mature plan will be evolved by the government. Now, I do not interject that for the purpose of attempting to make capital against the government, but I do suggest that in view of this very general feeling in the House something ought to be done; I do suggest that an effort should be made to mature a plan that will work out a solution at once, instead of having the matter thrown over to be dealt with at the next session of parliament.


Henry Robert Emmerson: Reference has been [DOT]made by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Hughes) to the desirability of giving employment to the South African veterans in addition to any financial aid which may be given. I think it is but fair to say that the government have acted in that direction. I can bear testimony to the fact that the ex-Minister of Railways has given employment on the Intercolonial Railway in the maritime provinces to a very large number of these men.



QUESTION OP PRIVILEGE BY MR.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. .1. T. SCHELL (Glengarry). Mr. Speaker, before you leave the Chair, I wish to rise to a question of privilege. When the House was in Committee of Supply, on Thursday last, the 13th, the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), for the fourth time,
Samuel Hughes: I believe, this session, again coupled my name with that of the superintendent of the Williamsburg canal. He had previously stated several times that this gentleman was an appointee of mine, in the course of some remarks not reflecting very favourably on the superintendent of the canal. I have just noticed that as reported on page 14147 of ' Hansard ' the hon. gentleman used these words :
As I mentioned the other night, when he was given this important position, one of the most important positions on the river, a position the occupant of which should know the marine interest thoroughly, he was a school teacher in Glengarry. I do not believe he over saw a canal before he was placed in this important position- he was the financial agent-I will put it mildly- of the hon. member for Glengarry (Mr. Schell).
I wish to state, Mr. Speaker,-and I wisii to put it mildly-that this statement is absolutely and entirely and unqualifiedly untrue. As I stated before, this Mr. Stewart was at one time, as a young man, a school teacher in Glengarry. Later he was employed in Montreal. Ottawa, and I cannot tell what other places, but during the year 1900 and for I do not know bow many years previous to that time, he was not a resident of Glengarry. He was not my financial agent, he was not an appointee of mine, I had no connection with Mr. Stewart. It is too had.' Mr. Speaker, that a member from his privileged position In this House, should go the length that the hon. member for Grenville did, even to attack a government employee. I know Mr. Stewart, and I understand from the department that lie is a good and capable oflicer, and even if he does not suit the member for Grenville, it is not a fair tiling that he should be attacked in this manner. I may say that Mr. Stewart Is not one of the Glengarry Stewarts ; he was not born in Glengarry, and so far as I know, is not related to the Glengarry Stewarts.


Andrew Broder: That is a good thing for them.


Mr. SCHELL.: 

FINANCIAL REVIEW.

Adam Carr Bell: Mr. Speaker, probably no one statement ever made in the House of Commons has attracted more attention than the historical one made in the year 1S94 by the opposition of that day, that the revenue and expenditure of Canada should be kept at a point about $2,000,000 less than the $38,000,000 which was then the expenditure of the country. These gentlemen did not all agree as to the amount by which the $3S,000,000 might be reduced. Some wanted a reduction of $2,000,000 ; others $3,000,000 or $4,000,000 ; some $5,000,000 ; and I think one gentleman would have applied the pruning knife to the extent of $0,000,000. However, if we take $2,000.000 as the more moderate estimate and the more likely to be the correct one and apply that to the expenditure of that day, then, in the opinion of those critics, the ordinary expenditure of Canada ought to be $30,000,000, and its total expenditure, including expenditure on capital account, about $41,000,000. Practically, the promise was made to the people by the gentlemen then representing the Liberal party that if elected they would carry on the affairs of the country for the- sum I have just mentioned. No doubt the country did take these gentlemen seriously. No doubt the country understood that, if returned to office, they would reduce the expenditure of the country and the consequent taxation imposed on the people to something like the extent they promised. I need scarcely say that this promised economy has not been carried out. If we will regard the expenditure and income of Canada to-day from that point of view most readily understood, namely, the amount per capita, we will find that since 1 SPG the revenue, and consequently the taxation. of Canada has increased at a very rapid rate, and that the expenditure of the country has increased in proportion. Instead of the government realizing what the people expected, it has gone lin the very opposite direction. Instead of practicing economy it has gone on steadily increasing the burdens of the people and the expenditure of the country. In 189C the revenue per head was $7.20 and the expenditure $7.20. In 1902, which is the last year for which returns were submitted by the government, the revenue, instead of being $7.20, was $10.64 and the expenditure $9.30. instead of $7.26 per head.


The MINISTER OF FUBLIC WORKS.: The balance was on the right side.


Adam Carr Bell: Yes. Last year, taking the figures which we find in the ' Gazette,' the revenue was $11.94 and the expenditure $9.37. Again the balance is on the right
side, but there is a very large increase over the figures of 1896. The increase per head since that time is in revenue $4.74 and in expenditure $2.11 per head, so that while this country has had an abundant revenue- and we will have opportunity before I conclude my remarks of tracing the sources of that revenue and showing the manner in which it has been collected and pressed upon the people-the promise of economy has been absolutely set at naught. Instead of maintaining the expenditure at the point fixed by these hon. gentlemen when in opposition, that expenditure has been increased by $2.11 per head. This increase of expenditure has been steady since 1S9G. The ordinary expenditure of Canada has increased from $37,000,000 in 1S9G to $52,000,000 this last year. And the total expenditure has increased from $44,000,000 to $G4,-000,000. The expenditure has gone up every year since the present government has been in power. Even this last year, in which there was at one time some prospect of economy, the expenditure has increased by $500,000 over that of the preceding year, when it was abnormally large. By these figures we can determine the manner in which the expenditure affects the individual householder. Take the average family at five and a half persons, we find that in 1903 the revenue had risen to $G5.G7 per family, or $11.94 per head, and the expenditure to $51.54 per family, or $9.37 per head. Avery large increase, I need scarcely say, over the figures which were recorded as altogether too excessive by the critics of 1893-4, when the Conservatives were administering our affairs. AVe would perhaps get a better idea of the steady manner in which the present government has kept increasing the expenditure by taking a series of years and contrasting the seven- years from 1890 to 1896- the last seven years of Conservative administration-when the average ordinary expenditure was $37,000,000 and the average total expenditure was $42,000,000, with the subsequent seven years. When we contrast those years with the seven years of Liberal administration of this government, who have been endeavouring very unsuccessfully to carry out their pledges of economy, we find that in those seven years in which this government has been in power, the average ordinary expenditure has increased from $37.000,000 to $44,000,000, and the average total expenditure from $42,000,000 to $54,000,000, making an increase of $7,000,000 in the one case and $12,000,000 in the other. These increases are very large. In the case of ordinary expenditure they amount to about one-fifth of the sum fixed by the Liberal party as that required to carry on the business of the country.- These gentlemen went so far as to say that there was absolutely no justification for a larger expenditure. But it is argued by these gentlemen, when they have been challenged from time to time for their failure to make good their promises, that

there is something in the existing conditions which justifies this large expenditure. They say that if the expenditure is great so is the revenue, and that the country oau afford an expenditure in 1903-4 which it could not afford seven years ago. They insisted in 1894, not only that the taxation was too high, but that'it was oppressive. Well, if we are to judge the affairs of the country by the conditions of its finances, we will find that there is no reasonable ground for that contention. There was no failure, no difficulty whatever in acquiring the revenues required for the use of the country at that time. A very brief survey of the financial condition of Canada in 1894, when these gentlemen were most positive in expressing these strong views, will show that the country provided, without any excessive taxation or any very burdensome impost, all the money required to carry on its business.
For instance, in 1893 the expenditure on account of consolidated fund was $37,000.000 in round numbers, and the total expenditure $41,000,000. In that year the revenue was $38,000,000, or $1,000,000 in excess of the expenditure on account of consolidated fund. In 1804. the expenditure on account of consolidated revenue fund was $37,000,000, and the total expenditure $43,000,000. In that year the revenue was $36,000,000, or about $1,000,000 less than the expenditure on current account. This was a comparatively small deficiency, and one that could easily have been made up by slight additions to the taxation of the country. It was a deficiency moreover which was due to the fact that large deductions had been made, under the capable administration of the Finance Minister of that time, in the taxation imposed upon the country. On the whole, for the two years I have given there was a surplus of $180,000. So, evidently, expenditure and revenue were very nearly balanced in these years. The revenue per bead in 1893 was $7.73, and in 1894, $7.29, while the expenditure was, for 1893, $7.40, and for 1S94, $7.54. These figures show that under the system of financing at that time in vogue, matters were managed by the government so as to keep revenue and expenditure just about where they should be- that is at almost a perfect balance.
Now, it must further be observed that at that very time we had entered upon a period of depression, a depression which came to its climax in 1895. We were not, as now, in a period of expansion, of buoyant trade, hut were approaching the lowest point in one of those depressions which periodically visit all countries. Furthermore, it must be borne in mind in making a comparison of that tiipe and this, that the Finance Minister of that day had withdrawn the duties upon sugar and other articles, and so had relieved the people of taxation to an amount which was estimated, and I think accurately estimated to save to the Mr. BELL.
people in a few years $19,000,000. The great relief afforded to the people of Canada by that immense reduction in taxation accounts very readily for the fact that there were at that time certain small deficits. At present we have an utterly different state of affairs. And, as I have been able to show the fallacy of the argument of the Minister of Customs that the country was in such a position, in the years I have referred to, that they were warranted in reducing taxation anl the public debt and curtailing expenditure, so I think I can show that if the government is now in the enjoyment of large revenue, it is because we are not only enjoying all the advantages of a period of prosperity, one of those periods which we, in common with all the rest of the world enjoy from time to time; but because during all this period of expansion, of prosperity, of great volume of business and high prices, the government of the day has not followed a 'sound financial system, has not relieved the people of taxation that is unnecessary for the purposes of the country, but has maintained throughout this period of expansion taxes which could only be justified under some pressing necessity requiring the government to take from the citizen every dollar that he could spare for the purposes of the government. The present government has not diminished the duties as did the government of which Hon. George E. Foster was the Finance Minister during a period of expansion and great prosperity previous to 1893. On the contrary, coming into power as they did, in 1896. when we were entering upon the period of expansion, of buoyant financial conditions, that we have enjoyed since that time, they proceeded to add to the taxation which had been imposed by Mr. Foster in order to meet the requirements of the country during the hard years of depression. They not only retained the taxes imposed by Mr. Foster, but added to them, and added to them very largely, by imposing taxation upon articles which are of universal use, and, therefore, the articles which most readily respond to the call of the government for increased revenue. Since it came into power, this government, even at a time when the current of business was flowing strong, at a time when we were evidently entering upon a period of good times, increased the duties on sugar, increased the duties on tobacco and increased the duties on spirits, all articles which respond readily to the effort on the part of the government to secure increased revenue. And, not only did they impose those duties, but they have maintained them during their whole period or1 office, a period when the revenue of the country was sure to be large, trade being buoyant and the business resources of the country greater. During the last year, we find that from sugar, an article on which the people of Canada in the years when these hon. gentleman criticised the government paid a very small duty, this government

14G06
has this year derived a revenue of $2,647,274 much greater .than the average revenue front this source under the duties previously imposed. From tobacco higher duties have raised $1,642,830 of increased revenue. Thus the government have added to their revenue and their surplus during a period of prosperity, an enormous taxation which could only be .justified if the country were in pressing need for an increase of revenue. The present government has refused to reduce these duties, though the necessary consequence of maintaining them is that the taxation of the people per head has been greatly increased. And why have they refused to reduce them ? I suppose it is unnecessary to say to lion, gentlemen who have occupied seats in this House during the last seven years that the government rely for their support in the country largely upon the fact that they ares enabled to say to parliament and to the country, from year to year, that they have large revenues and large surpluses. But for this, in my opinion, they would not continue the taxation at the point at which it stands. But, apparently, to the minds of these ljon. gentlemeu, sound financing is the collection of large revenue, anil the best title to the support and admiration of the people is to prove to the people that the government is exacting from them large sums which are not needed to carry on the business of the country during the current year. The large surpluses which the government have had, mean, of course, that large sums in excess of the ordinary expenditure of the country, and of the ordinary requirements of the country, are taken from the citizens by the government.
Now, that is not ordinarily held to be good financing. It has been held to be good financing that the government should pay its way, that the revenue of the country should equal its ordinary expenditure. But in order to maintain matters at a proper level, the capital expenditure of the country is the expedient which has been devised in order to relieve the citizens from an excessive burden of taxation and to prevent the necessity of the government taking from them a larger sum of money than is required to meet the ordinary expenditure of the country. Consequently, to my mind, and I think it ought to be evident to every one, sound financing consists in reducing the expenditure of the country to the lowest point consistent with an efficient administration of the affairs of the country, and at the same time reducing taxation to a point where the revenue will precisely equal ordinary expenditure. Ordinary expenditure should be economically made and kept at the lowest possible point, and the revenue of the country ought to be kept to a point which will precisely meet or slightly exceed that ordinary expenditure. Except living expenses, the ordinary expenses required to meet the administration of the government, to meet the regular everyday
requirements of the people, all other works ought to be paid for, not out of the surpluses, which are only produced by excessive taxation, but ought to be paid for by a system of capital expenditure by which the cost of those works will be spread over, not one, two or three years, but over the whole period during which those works will be available, and they will be gradually paid for by the people during- the years in which they have the advantage of those expenditures. In this way each year the country pays its ordinary expenses, and in addition, by means of sinking fund, it pays its proportion of the capital outlay for the extraordinary expenditure which the country is required to incur.
Now there is another reason which to my mind makes it clear that a system which enables a government to be .in the possession of large surpluses, and to claim credit for them is a most objectionable system. The state, if it is economically and fairly well governed, can always procure money, can borrow money a great deal cheaper than even a rich citizen, and, of course, very much cheaper than a poprer citizen ; and if money is required for capital expenditure, it seems to me it is better financing, and better for the government, and better for the country that the moneys required for extraordinary expenses of the country should be procured by borrowing, and should be repaid by a system of judiciously applied sinking funds, rather than that this expenditure should be made out of surpluses which can only be in the possession of the government in consequence of the taxation of the country for the time, being excessive. There is another objection to surpluses, and one which was urged very strongly and effectively by a gentleman who sat upon this side of the House in the years in which the Conservative party were in power-for during many years when the Conservatives were in power, they did have surpluses to their credit-and that was the fact that the possession of large revenues, the possession of surpluses, the possession of excessive revenues, has a great tendency to lead to extravagance. I do not think we need go very far in considering the estimates, not only of this year, but of the years that are past, to discover that there are reasons to believe that the people of this country have not very far to look in the pages .of these estimates to find that the result of large revenues in the hands of this government, has been to largely increase the expenditure, and to induce that exti-avagance which we had every reason to believe would result in the case of every government that has large surpluses in excess of its needs.
Now, there is another reason still, to my mind, why the taxation should be reduced to the point at which it would meet the ordinary expenditure of the country aud no more. There are in the country a certain number of people who have wealth, who

have money to spare, but it is a small class. There is a much larger class to whom money is of great value, who have no money to spare, and on the other hand are for the greatest part of the time in the market borrowing money. Under a system that, without any process of taxation, derives large revenues from that portion of the population which has surplus funds, which has money to spare, we find that in addition to other sums which the present government have borrowed, they have in their hands, and are using, nearly $100,000,000 which were loaned to them practically by the people of this country. They have nearly $40,000,000 of notes in circulation, pieces of paper with the endorsement and guarantee of the government upon them, which are accepted by the people as cash, and for which, of course, the government receives the equivalent of cash. To that extent the whole amount of the circulation of this country, which is nearly $40,000,000, is practically a loan made by the people to the government of the day. Then in the Dominion government savings bank and the postal savings bank of the country there are deposits of some $60,000,000 as well. From that class of people, from the business people who keep the money in circulation, and from the more wealthy people, who use the savings banks as banks of deposit-it is evident that the government to-day is receiving from that class, which has a superfluity and can spare, something like $100,000,000. They receive that at a very low rate of interest, the average interest upon that whole sum is only a fraction under 2 per cent; about i :87 per cent, I think. Now from these facts it seems clear that the government having $100,000,000 practically in their hands, have already withdrawn from circulation and from the coffers of those who can spare, of those who have money which they do not require, as large a sum of money as can be safely and advantageously contributed to the government by the people. When the government of the day maintains taxation at such a point that it is in a position to point to surpluses such as we have this year, an enormous surplus, then to my mind, the government of the day has taken from the pockets of the people, who require it more than they do, and can use it to better advantage than' they can, a large sum of money which would be far better in the pockets of the people than in the coffers of the government. Apart altogether from the fact that a large surplus at the hand of the government over and above what is required for ordinary expenditure, leads to extravagance, apart altogether from that, it is withdrawing from the pockets of the people a sum of $14,000,000 this year, which the country could use to much better advantage than can the government. A great part of the people of this country are borrowers, as a rule they have to pay 6 or 7 per cent for the money which they borrow.
Mr. BELL,.
The government that requires money in an emergency can borrow money for 3 per cent or less, and to my mind it seems perfectly clear that a system of finance in which any large sum of money is left in the hands of the government in the form of a surplus, is simply a diversion of that money from the pockets of the people, where it would be most productive, to the coffers of the government, where it is not required at all. In fact it is the people who make the surplus. I think I have heard of some eases in which it would almost seem that the members of the government spoke in such a fashion as to lead you to infer that the government created the surplus, that the Finance Minister made the surplus, and deserved all the credit for it. A surplus is made by the people, and to my mind it is made by the people at a loss to their own pockets, a loss to their own interests. They make the surplus and they lose by making it.
Now I have said that these large surpluses mean large expenditures. We know very well that from the date on which this government came into power, the expenditures of the country have grown rapidly. We do not forget the now historic remark of one prominent member of the government, who, when the largely increased expenditure of the government was called to his notice, said : ' Oh, yes, but wait, till you see us next year.'


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: He is not on this side now. He is on the other side.


Adam Carr Bell: He is not the Finance Minister on this side. If he is on this side I have not seen him. I am of the opinion that his spirit is evidently on the other side. He is apparently just as much as ever be was the master of the administration in' so far as its expenditure is concerned.


Dominique Monet: The hon. ex-Minister of Public Works declared at his last meeting at St. Hugues in the county of Bagot that he had no more confidence in the present government, so that he has passed to the Tories.


Adam Carr Bell: I presume that no man in Canada is in a better position to judge of the merits of that government and to pronounce what I would fondly hope would be an unbiased opinion in reference to it. One of the instances that go clearly to prove what I have said that the fact is that large sums in the possession of the government tend to extravagance, is to be seen in connection with a very important event in the history of Canada that occurred in 1901. I refer to the late census. The last census taken of this country cost more than twice as much as the previous census under the administration of a government which did not aim at having surpluses, did not boast of having surpluses and did not make it its chief business to have surpluses. The last

census lias cost at least $100,000 more than twice as much as the previous census and yet the population of the country enumerated only increased by about ten per cent. There you have an instance of the result of these ideas of a growing and abounding prosperity, there you have an instance of the result of the government approaching a public work with an overflowing pocket, there you can very clearly see the results when those who are doing the business of the country turn to their paymaster with a full knowledge that the government are in possession of an income largely in excess of what is required for the necessities of the country and that they have an overflowing treasury. The census of 1901 has cost $100,000 more than twice as much as the census of 1S91.


Mr. TALBOT.: It is twice as well done.


Adam Carr Bell: If it is twice as well done there must be a great many bulletins and volumes to be issued that we have not yet seen to justify this large expenditure. In my opinion it is not half as well done. If it is twice as well done it must be in the province of the hon. member who interrupted me (Mr. Talbot) where there is a great advance in population which will require further investigation. It will be found that throughout all these expenditures the cost of enumeration is doubled not only in one county but in every county. Whether the population has increased or not the cost of the census has doubled. It is evident that if the cost of enumeration is twice ns much as the cost of the previous one, then the compilation has cost more than $100,000 more than twice as much as the cost of the compilation in 1891. It has not yet been completed and from what I have been able to learn it is not likely to be completed. The cost of the census gives an admirable instance of what results from the government administering the affairs of the country in such a manner as to have a large surplus. It shows that not only in one county, one office, or one division of the country but that in every county, every office and every division of the country the cost of administering the affairs of the country has increased enormously and that it has more than doubled. In reference to the civil government of this country which has to do with the ordinary every day administration of affairs the same result is to a certain extent true. The estimates of this year show that the cost of civil government has increased about $40,000. Increases are given everywhere and in addition to that we have just passed through this House Bills for the purpose of increasing the remuneration of different officers, and the cost of civil government, which, it has been estimated by a speaker on the government side of the House, will require a further expenditure by the government of $80,000. so that practically we will see an increase of $120,000 in
the cost of civil government for this present year. The cost of civil government in 1902-3 was $1,365,244 and next year it will approach $1,500,000. The increase in the cost of civil government is not an exception. It merely indicates what is the rule. In the Immigration Department we have an increase of $150,000 with no corresponding increase of immigrants. There is a large immigration coming into the country from the west but it is not coming in as a result of this large expenditure. The large expenditure made by the government of the country has not brought into the country [DOT] any immigration of a valuable character. In fact there is a large movement out of the country. Not only has the exodus not been stopped by any acts of the government or by immigration work but the fact of the matter is that the exodus from the eastern part of Canada, as well as the volume of settlers' effects going into the United States, is increasing. I will give a few of the increases in expenditure since the year 3896 :
Service.	Increase.	Per Cent of Increase.Interest on the debt ..	$ 473,005	5Administration of jus-	tice	191.960	25Civil government .. .. Miscellaneous and con-	100,741	7tingencies	973,757	566Public works (capital).	2,921,948	225Inspection of staples ..	10,933	420Immigration	374,643	311Quarantine	169,491	178Ocean and river service.	314,739	174Public works (revenue).	339,053	213
These are a few instances of what is the rule as may be found by reference to the columns showing the expenditure in the public accounts. The rule is that the expenditure of every department has increased excepting one, and that is the expenditure in reference to the census. The census column shows no increase whatever because the census figures have not been placed under the heading of census. They are mixed up with other items under the heading of Arts, Agriculture and Statistics. This is one of the particular cases in which the most glaring manifestation of extravagance is afforded and yet there is nothing to be seen in the public accounts at all relating to that expenditure. An enormous increase will be noticed in the item of miscellaneous which is a very comprehensive subject and a very convenient heading under which to include many items which it is not desirable should be too specifically treated in the accounts.
It is very natural to inquire as to how these immense increases have come about. We find the government guilty of some of the most amazing expenditures. We find a wharf at Grand Vallee. in the province of Quebec, which cost $50,000, built for a private individual and not for the public service-a present of $50,000 given to one man. Naturally a government with a surplus of

$13,000,000 or $14,000,000 is not going to be too severe on a good supporter, and twenty good supporters at $50,000 each would only cost $1,000,000. We had another amazing expenditure of $50,000 for plugging a hole in the Yukon; for undoing work that never should have been done. In Ontario we have seen a wharf costing $10,000, built where there is no population, and where there is no necessity for a wharf. This government, with an overflowing treasury, cannot be tco hard on men who approach them with a pull or with influence. We have evidence on the St. Lawrence canal works to show that, apparently, expenditures are going on of their own accord and beyond the control of the government. We see contracts carried on by the owners of a dredge at their own sweet will, and apparently the government could not stop it. There is lots of money in the treasury, and when contractors have a dredge, why should they not put it to work and present their bills to the government and collect the accounts. Hon. gentlemen who have watched the estimates this year know of many such cases as I have enumerated. Nine years ago these gentlemen on the treasury benches, when they sat in opposition, contended that an annual expenditure of $38,000,000 was $2,000,000 too much, and that an expenditure of $36,000,000 a year was an ample expenditure for the public services of Canada. But nine years afterwards they are in power and their main estimates frr the financial year 1902-3 amounted to $59,001,934.90, and their supplementary estimates for the same financial year amounted to $5,390,908.27, or in all, for the year ending the 30th June last, this House voted $04,425,903. These gentlemen opposite advocated an expenditure of $36,000,000 nine years ago. and while they still seem wedded to the figures ' 3 ' and ' 6,' it unfortunately happens that they have reversed the order of these figures, and they have deliberately expended over $63,000,000. In the main estimates for the current year, we voted $57,109,974.35. These main estimates, when they were submitted, indicated an evidence of economy, as they were less than the main estimates of the previous year, but that was only the first chapter of the story, because later on during this session, we were presented with supplementary estimates amounting to $10,590,863.12. and just a few weeks ago we had a batch of further supplementary estimates amounting to $771,365.55. In the supplementary estimates there was an addition of 20 per cent to the expenditure in the main estimates. We, therefore, have estimates for the current year amounting to the enormous sum of $68,472,203.02. This year We voted 9T per cent to supply the deficit on the estimates of the previous year, and if next year we are called upon to vote the same proportion of 9T per cent to be added to the total estimates we have voted this year, then the total amount of the esti-Mr. BELL.
mates for this year, 1903-4, will have amounted to $74,703,173.49.


Mr. ROSS (Ontario).: What Mill it be in five years ?
5Ir. BELL. Five years hence a better, and a wiser, and a more economic government will be in power, and'the expenditure Mill be reduced. Evidently the Minister of Finance has been unable to keep a check upon the treasury as effectively as he could have wished. In his budget speech, deliver-i d last April, he estimated the expenditure for the coming financial year at $61,650,000. He apparently did not do justice to his government or to the appetite of his supporters, because the expenditure for the year has reached almost $64,000,000, an increase of nearly $3,000,000 over the estimate by the Minister of Finance in April last.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Where does my hon. friend get these figures ?


Adam Carr Bell: From the budget speech.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, but the hon. gentleman is saying that the actual expenditure is $64,000,000.


Adam Carr Bell: I have added the regular estimates of last year and the supplementaries for the last year M'hich have been passed this session.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is no need of taking estimates n'hen the actual figures of the outlay have been given in the House.


Adam Carr Bell: Would the Minister of Finance be kind enough to give the exact expenditure ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is $62,074,000, which includes everything.


Mr. HENDERSON.: When were those figures laid before the House ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some
time ago; I do not know the exact date.


Adam Carr Bell: I n7as not able to find these figures anywhere. In that case, the Minister of Finance has exceeded, by about $424,000, the estimate made by him In April last.


Dominique Monet: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) estimated that the expenditure n-as $68,472,000.


Adam Carr Bell: No, I said it was $64,000,000. But ivlien we consider the expenditures we are going to make next year, or that we have become liable' for, then the situation becomes startling. Although the figures this year are enormously large, they are small in comparison with the possibilities of the expenditure which the government has provided for in the future. For instance, in the last M'eek of this session, n-e have voted $13,500,000 for railway subsidies, and M-e are asked to vote nearly $7,000,000 for the

Quebec bridge.	$20,500.000 are voted in
the last days of the session. Of course, it may be argued that ali this money will not be spent in the course of the year, and that we will not be called upon to pay the whole of it, but it is added to our liabilities, and there is the possibility that we may be called upon to pay it. I have prepared a table to show the liabilities of this country as assumed by parliament this session, including the estimates, subsidies, proposed expenditures for railway construction, and guarantees, I find that we have voted
Supplementary Estimates, 1903 __$ 300,000 00
Estimates, 1903	
5,090,968	27Estimates, 1903-4	
54,109.974	35Supplementary Estimates, 1903-4.. 10,590,865 12 Supplementary Estimates, 1903-4..	771.365	55

Railway subsidies	 $13,300,000
Iron bounties	 1,248,359
Lead bounties	 300,000
Grand Trunk Pacific	  120,000,000


Guarantee G.   T.@: Pacific	 31.000,000
Guarantee Canadian Northern bonds. 9,360,000 Guarantee Quebec bridge bonds.... 6,900,000 Guarantee Civil Service increases..	80,000

We have voted railway subsidies amounting to $13,000,000.
For iron bounties we have a liability accruing, which if equal to what it was last year, will be $1,248,359.
We have for lead bounties a liability of $300,000.
We have for Grand Trunk construction, taking what 1 consider to be a perfectly conservative estimate, a liability of $120,000,000.
Then we guarantee the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway bonds, $31,000,000, assuming that the prairie section is 1,000 miles in length and the mountain section 000 miles in length.
We have guaranteed the Canadian Northern bonds to the amount of $9,360,000.
We will be asked in the course of the next few hours to guarantee for the Quebec bridge $0,900,000.
We have voted civil service increases which are estimated to cost the country $S0,000 and the total sum of money voted, or for which the country is made liable in the course of the present year, reaches the enormous total of $253,051,532.
Then in addition to that there are several unconsidered trifles, there are a further increase to the iron and steel bounties, a bounty on binder twine, &c., all of which when put together may be expected to bring up the total liabilities to $253,100,000.
That seems to be a record which is not likely to be surpassed even by the present government for some time to eome, no matter what opportunities they may have to spend money.


Mr. BELCOURT.: Does my hon. friend object to the expenditure caused by the increase to the salaries of the civil servants which were recently passed ?


Adam Carr Bell: I suppose that as an opposition we are here to criticise and examine the expenditure of the governmeut and while we are not indisposed to see the civil service increases made it is perfectly legitimate for us when we are examining the liabilities and obligations of the country to include this expenditure. I have no objection to making reasonable increases in the salaries of the civil servants.


Napoléon Antoine Belcourt: You do not object to it now ?


Adam Carr Bell: I am not objecting to it ; I am giving the results of the benevolence of the government. The government has a tremendous capacity for spending money and they justify that expenditure to the country always with the same story : Everything is prosperous, Canada has never been so prosperous as since we have been in power. ' Pest hoc, ergo propter hoc ' is not a very sound argument, but apparently it is thought by the government to he good enough for their purpose. But, after all, a very little examination will show that the surpluses of which they are boasting are partly derived by adopting a financial system different from that which existed when they came into power. For instance, under the preceding government and under this one up to a certain point, the iron bounties which we give in lieu of increased protection were paid out of current revenue; they are now paid out of capital account and the consequence is that every dollar paid out in iron bounties is a direct addition to the surplus of the year. Last year this country paid $1,242,21S for iron bounties and if this amount had been paid under the system of financing adopted by the late government the surplus would be less by $1,242,218. I presume that tbe increased bounties on iron and lead and binder twine and all expenditures of a similar character will be paid-in the case of the iron bounties they will certainly be paid-in the same way. Consequently you cannot fairly compare the surpluses of this government with those of the government that preceded it. The policy of the government is to keep taxation at the highest point at which the people will bear it, and to charge up to capital account every part of the ordinary expenditure of the country they possibly can. They have done that in the case of the iron bounties and in the case of a great deal of the expenditure on railways. It is undoubtedly a fair criticism of the administration that a large expenditure, aggregating nearly $1,000,000. upon the Intercolonial from year to year, which ought to be charged to revenue is charged to capital account. The government keeps up their sur-

plus by maintaining taxation at a very high point and charging to capital account every dollar they can justify themselves in charging to capital account and a great many dollars which they cannot justify to any sound financier. In this way they make the surpluses appear much larger than they really are. The probability is that sound financing would reduce the surplus of the present government by nearly $3,000,000, and if you take off in addition to that the large increase in taxation which has been put on the necessaries of life, sugar, tobacco, and spirits, the surplus would be reduced by $1,500,000 more. Thus their boasted surpluses are not as large as they appear. A favourite argument of this government in defending itself from charges by the opposition in the House or the country is to assert that the members of the opposition have not challenged or divided the House upon the items in the estimates.


Dominique Monet: Hear, hear.


Adam Carr Bell: My hon. friend says hear, hear ; he apparently concurs in that view. I am surprised to hear him say that in the House of Commons ; if he was speaking on the stump in some of the more remote hamlets in his constituency it might be effective.


Dominique Monet: It was.


Adam Carr Bell: In this House where everyone is familiar with the manner in which the government is carried on, it is known that the opposition would keep parliament in session for ever by challenging every item; it is the business of the opposition to criticise and to let the government make the expenditure.


Mr. McCREARY.: Why did my hon. friend not object to these very large sums which were voted in Nova Scotia last week for wharfs, railway subsidies, &c. He took all he could get.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: There were only $300,000. '


Adam Carr Bell: What would be the result if we had to challenge every one of those items.


William Forsythe McCreary: Perhaps some of the members on this side would have voted with you.


Adam Carr Bell: I have seen propositions submitted by gentlemen on this side of the House which were much more likely to induce support from hon. gentlemen opposite, yet, they received absolutely no support.


William Forsythe McCreary: There was one subsidy challenged and only one member of the opposition voted with the hon. member for West Assiniboia (Mr. Scott) against it.


Adam Carr Bell: Such criticism is perfectly idle. It is not possible for an opposition
to call for a vote on every item. These items are submitted by the government, which has a majority at its back or it would not be in office, and that majority is bound to put every item through.


Dominique Monet: Would not some hon. gentleman opposite have voted with the government, and is not that the reason the vote is not challenged ?


Adam Carr Bell: No, that is not the reason. There are many items in the estimates which could be challenged but it would be perfectly vain to challenge them. At all times it has been the practice of the opposition to criticise the items and allow them to pass. To challenge item by item would simply mean division after division and the result would be the same. No more idle and foolish criticism can be addressed to an opposition than to attack them because they do not challenge all the items. There may be from time to time some items which are challenged. But the usual course for the opposition is to criticise and leave the government to assume the responsibility. In this way I have reviewed all the evils of the government system-its exorbitant taxation and expenditure and its failure to implement the pledges it gave in opposition. So many members of the cabinet to-day were leaders of the late opposition that it is impossible for them to evade the responsibility for the pledges given by the Liberal party at that time. They made the most positive pledge to reduce the taxation and the debt and the expenditure. They have absolutely failed 1o keep any one of these promises. Instead they have gone to an enormous length in the very opposite direction, to such a length that apparently their great object is to emphasize their own disapproval of the opinions 1bey expressed in the past. These very gentlemen who appeal to the people on the ground that they were economists, who would reduce taxation and expenditure and our national debt, now that they are in office, evidently have changed their opinions and are appealing to the same people to keep them in power because they have out-Heroded Herod in everything in the shape of increased taxation and expenditure and general extravagance. I maintain that It is not the duty of the opposition to challenge every item or even very many items of the expenditure. Such a course would hopelessly delay parliamentary business, with no satisfactory result. But I think it is imperative that we should from time to time, remind these hon. gentlemen of their utterances while in opposition, recall to the attention of the people the statements they made, and point out how far they have departed from those sound principles of government and finance which they laid down when out of office. Everybody must admit that economy is a good thing, that wd should keep taxation at the lowest possible point, and that any taxa-


Adam Carr Bell: tion which takes a dollar more from the people than is required for the administration of public affairs is diverting money from a profitable to an unprofitable channel. Such a policy encourages extravagance, it increases the burdens of the country, and launches the country on a course of wild expenditure, from which it is exceedingly difficult to turn back. Therefore, I would move :
That all the words after the word ' that ' in-the proposed motion be left out and the following substituted therefor :-
The total expenditure during eash fiscal year from 1891 to 1902, both inclusive, was as follows :-
1891.
1892.
1893. 1891. 1895 1S96.
1897.
1898.
1899.
1900.
1901.
1902.

That the Finance Minister estimated that the expenditure for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, would be $61,650,000.
That the regular estimates and the supplementary estimates voted for the year ending June 30, 1903,, amounted to $64,452,903.17.
That on this estimate of the Finance Minister the annual expenditure on both consolidated fund and capital account has increased between 1897 and 1903 by a sum of $18,677,244 or on basis of estimates voted by a sum of $21,480,147.
That during the period above named the revenues of the country have been unusually large, and yet the public debt has not been kept at the point where it stood in 1897, but at the end of the fiscal year ending June 30, 1902, showed an increase of $13,331,651.85.
That the sums voted at the present session of parliament amount to $73,863,171.29 of which $68,472,203.02 are for the current year.
That in addition to the sums so voted large increases of the public expenditure have been made which are authorised by statute to be paid out of consolidated fund. Among these are railway subsidies ov.er thirteen million dollars.
That this House desires to place on record the opinion that the expenditure for the year
1903	and the proposed expenditure for the year
1904	are excessive and extravagant, and that it views with alarm the course of the government towards ever-increasing expenditure, its failure to reduce the public debt by maintaining a high rate of taxation, and its adding to capital expenditure and to the obligations of the country enormous sums for whiih the country cannot receive adequate returns.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding).: Whatever difficulties we may have with respect to economy in other matters, I think we have reached the stage in the business of the session when we'can all agree that economy of speech is desirable. Therefore though my hon. friend from Pietou (Mr. Bell) has covered a very considerable ground-I will not say at much length-and has referred to many questions which would tempt one to occupy time, I
shall deem it necessary to condense my remarks as much as possible, and, for that reason, to deal only with what I regard as the chief points. I think my hon. friend labours under a great difficulty, which is common to all hon. gentlemen on that side. Thesp hon. gentlemen seem to be utterly unable to appreciate the changes which have come over this country since the days of 1896 with which they make comparisons. Perhaps it is not unnatural that they should experience that difficulty. When we recall the predictions they made as to the dreadful things that would happen to this country if a Liberal government should come into power, and when we recall what has happened since that day ; when we contrast the reality with the predictions of my hon. friends : when we realize that the public appreciate the great change that has taken place, perhaps we should allow hon. gentlemen the privilege of still shutting their eyes to the great facts which are apparent to the public at large. I would like to say to my hon. friend that the speech he has made and the resolution he has moved would he alarming, if we had not had a number of such speeches and a number of such resolutions in previous years towards the close of the several sessions under Liberal rule. I remember that in the first session in which the Liberal government took charge of affairs, in 1896, the distinguished gentleman who then occupied the position of the leader of the opposition, in a very eloquent and vigorous address declared that it was a moral certainty that the government would come out at the end of the fiscal year with a most disastrous showing, that they would have a deficiency of some $3,000,000. At the end of the year the deficiency proved to be a very modest one-some five hundred odd thousand dollars if my memory serves me well. And every session since that time, we have had one of these alarmist speeches, and one of these alarmist resolutions, in which all the moneys we have voted have been rolled up into one great sum with a view to persuading the people that, under the financial legislation of the session, nothing but disaster could come upon this afflicted country. But somehow or other, when the end of the year has been reached and the accounts have been made up, the people have discovered that the finances of the country have prospered, that these dreadful things have not happened, that the world has moved on in a very nice and comfortable way, and that Canada, instead of being obliged^ to face deficits, as in the past has enjoyed an era of very comfortable surpluses. And so, 1 venture to say the citizens of Canada, reminded as they will be of these dreadful speeches and dreadful anticipations of former times, will understand that the speech made and the resolution moved to-night by my hon. friend from Pietou is only another I one of these alarms which they are not just-

ified in talcing too seriously. Hon. gentlemen opposite have been crying out these alarms year after year and session after session, so they must not be surprised if the people no longer take much stock in them.
I do not attempt to deny the apparent fact that the expenditure of this country has grown very largely since 1896. But it has grown for good and proper purposes. Instead of apologizing for that expenditure, we are proud to refer to it, because that expenditure, we believe, has been one of the instrumentalities which have brought about the growth and the progress of the country since 1896. The growth and progress and prosperity of Canada for the last few years, undoubtedly, have come from the industry, intelligence, energy and thrift of the people. But all these qualities would have been vain if they had not beeen assisted by wise legislation ; and we believe that this government and this Liberal party, by their financial legislation as well as by other measures, by the liberality and wisdom of their public expenditure, have been doing much to help the people to produce the splendid results which the records of the country jilace before them.	-
We have spent more money. Let me take a few of the principal classes of our expenditures as compared with 1890. We spent last year $846,345 more on militia than was spent in 1890. Is there any lion, gentleman opposite who objects to that " expenditure ? Do not we know that, far from opposing the militia expenditure, there has been a tendency on the part of hon. gentlemen opposite to demand larger expenditures on this service ? Do not we know that, again and again suggestions have been made by these hon. gentlemen with regard to the militia of the country which would involve us in very large expenditures ? So,
I may fairly ask my hon. friends opposite to agree with me that, in that great item where we have spent almost $1,000,000 more than in 1S96, there is no room for criticism. We expended in 1903 on public works about $2,750,000 more than was spent in 1890. Sir, these expenditures have covered the whole face of the Dominion, and they have been wise and useful expenditures. It would be foolish for any of us to claim that, in Ihe expenditure of so much money from ocean to ocean, employing a vast army of officials and servants, every man engaged has been absolutely faithful to a cent ; it would he foolish to say that in no case had a mistake been made ; it would be foolish to say of the men employed in public affairs, any more than of men employed in private affairs, that all are perfect. But. take it all in all, I do not hesitate to say in the light of all the inquiries that have been made, that these expenditures on public works have been wise and useful expenditures, and have been instrumental in helping on the progress and prosperity of the country. We Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
spent on the lighthouse and ocean service of Canada $498,000 in 1903 more than was spent in 1S96. Shall we apologize for that expenditure before the people of Canada today ? No. Are we not a great maritime country ? Have we not our great waterway, the St. Lawrence, which must be improved with buoys, lights and all the various aids to navigation 1 Have we not our coast line in Quebec and the maritime provinces, as well as in, British Columbia, where we must have lighthouses and all the other improvements which protect the mariner ? We have been expending money for these services ; and, far from regretting it, far from apologizing for it, we say that in face of criticism such as hon. gentlemen have offered tonight that we are prepared to provide the money and do the work, and let the world know that our national highway is a highway of safety for the commerce of nations. We spent $100,000 more on the fishery service in 1903 than we spent in 1896. Shall we. apologize for that ? Is there a man in this House who does not recognize the importance of the great fishing industry of this country ? Is there one who does not recognize the obligation resting upon us to nourish and encourage and protect that Industry ? We have spent more money, and, no doubt, as the days roll on, the minister in charge of that great department will find it necessary to spend still more ; and, if he is able to spend it with the same justification as can be given for ,the expenditure in the past, we shall not need to apologize before tbe people of Canada for that use of their money. We spent on tlie service of immigration in 1903. $52G,000 more than was expended in the year 1896. Shall we, in the face of what we have seen in the west, apologize before this House for that increased expenditure ? The little that hon. gentlemen opposite spent in 1896 accomplished nothing. Every dollar that has been expended in the immigration service of this country under the present administration has brought a rich harvest for the present and will bring a richer harvest for the future of Canada.
My hon. friend from Pictou says that in that respect there "is an exodus from the lower provinces. We have discussed that question before, and I say to my hon. friend that there is, there has been for a great many years, and I imagine there always will be, some movement of population from those provinces. They, are an adventurous people who live by the seaside, their tendency is to go abroad, and I do not expect tbe time will ever arrive when that movement will not be found to some extent. But I do take the responsibility of saying to-day that throughout tbe lower provinces there is a better condition in that respect than there has been at any other time during tbe last quarter of a century. I say there are fewer people leaving the maritime provinces, and I say that in most parts of the maritime

provinces the question to-day is not one of an exodus, the question is to find men to labour on the works which are opening up all over these provinces.
We have spent $565,000 more in connection with our sinking fund. That is a mere matter of book-keeping, it adds nothing to the burden of the country, it is an assistance to the redemption of the public debt, and whether it be large or small, it is practically a provision for redemption, and our obligations are not in any sense increased. We have spent more money on the administration of justice-my hon. friend called attention to that. I have not the figures he used, but it is a curious thing for my bon. friend to select that as the subject of complaint, when we have ill our mind the fact that only a few days ago, when there was a discussion in this House with regard to the salary of judges, almost without exception every hon. gentleman who rose on the other side asked that the salaries of the judges be increased. What is the use of the hon. gentleman standing up and denouncing an expenditure when he knows that the general feeling of the men around him is rather in favour of increasing that expenditure than of reducing it ?
We spent last year on the item of the customs service, $332,000 more than in 1890. I have no doubt that hon. gentlemen op posite will go throughout the country and will point to the fact that under the administration of my hon. friend the Minister of Customs the expenditure has increased to that extent ; but they will forget to mention the fact that by means of that increased expenditure of $332,000, he is able to show an increase in the revenue of $17,170,000. There was an increase in the expenditure in connection with excise of a little more than $8,000 last year, as compared with 1896 ; but that slightly increased expenditure was incurred in th* machinery for collecting a revenue which increased to the extent of $4,087,000. We spent last year on expenditure chargeable to the consolidated fund on account of the post office, $440,000 more than in 1896 ; but on the other side of the account, which hon. gentlemen are careful not to mention, the revenue was increased by $1,443,000. We increased the working expenses of the Intercolonial-practically they were doubled-we increased them about $3,184,000, but every dollar of that increased expenditure in the working of tlie Intercolonial, apart from the capital account, came back to us in something more than a dollar in the increased revenue which came from the road.
My hon. friend, in presenting his bill of alarm, magnified the figures of the railway subsidies as much as ihe could, and he made, not for the first time this session, the statement that these subsidies have been brought down at the end of the session when there is not time to consider them. I have taken the trouble to look into the record of the
former government on that question, and I find that beginning with the year 1885, there never was a single occasion in the history of the Conservative government when these railway subsidies were brought down as early as they have been in the present session. These subsidies were placed on the notice paper of the House of Commons on October 6. I suppose, if things move prosperously, we may look forward to what the Prime Minister sometimes describes as the blessings of prorogation, at the end of the present week. Assuming that we shall close on Saturday next, though 1 hope it will be Friday, I want to point out that there will then be eighteen clear days from the time these subsidies were brought down until it is contemplated parliament will prorogue. Compare that with what happened in the days of the Conservative administration. I find that in 1894 they brought their railway subsidies down five days before the session closed ; in 1893, five days before the session closed ; in 1890, four days before the session closed ; in 1887, three days before the session closed ; and in the *whole record of all these years, the longest period that they ever allowed for the consideration of the railway subsidies-and that was in one year only-was a period of twelve days. So I am able to say to my hon. friends that they have no cause of complaint with regard to the manner in which these subsidies have been brought before the House. This has been a busy session. It is not the business of the government to load down the Order Paper with a vast amount of business that cannot be digested by the House ; it is the business of the government to keep the House supplied fully with leading and important measures, and there never has been a session of parliament in which that duty has been better performed than it has been by this government during the present session.
My hon. friend deals with these railway subsidies as if they were to be expended all in one year. He does not say that, but the manner in which his speech is framed and his resolutions are framed, will convey the impression, I am afraid, as it has in the past, that the sums mentioned will all be expended in one year. Now my hon. friend knows and will admit that that would be a very erroneous impression.
Ml-: BELL. I think I stated that these would not be all expended in one year. Perhaps the hon. gentleman did not notice that.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Then the question arises, why they should be included in dealing with the expenditure for one year, for my hon. friend realizes that these subsidies in some cases will never be expended at all. The experience of the past is that some companies which come forward and induce the government to grant these subsidies, come forward in good faith,

find that they cannot finance the undertaking. In some cases it has happened in the past, that the amounts have not been paid at all. That will no doubt happen in some cases in the present instance ; but even in cases where these railways are undertaken it will take several years to construct them, and this vast sum of money which my hon friend includes in his bill to frighten the citizens of Canada, will, so far as it becomes payable at all, cover a number of years. In answer to a question put in the House a few days ago, I was able to state that in the term of ten years the subsidies granted to the various lines of railway, approximated-because as respects some of them, you cannot fix the exact amount to $27,000,01)0 ; yet the actual figures of expenditures show that during those ten years the payments for subsidies only amounted to $15,000,000. So if we follow the experience of the past and strike a fair average, what we shall probably have to pay, taking one year with another, will be about $1,500,000 each year in railway subsidies. That will not be an excessive sum when we consider the splendid territory it will develop, and the disposition that is manifest now from ocean to ocean to take up new enterprises with more courage and more hope than ever existed in former years.
But, Sir, I observe that my hon. friend, while contenting himself with these general denunciations, does not attempt to indicate any particular item, either in the railway subsidies or in any other portion of our public expenditure, with which he can find fault. I should perhaps make an exception, because he has mentioned one or two items- I do not remember the exact figures, I suppose altogether $15,000 or $20,000 for two public works. But at whatever sum my hon. friend may place them, where does he find himself then ? We have appropriations which run up to, I think he said, $200,000,000 or more. My hon. friend has the figure, but, whatever it is, he has not ventured to move to strike out any of those items, but he stands up and denounces them generally. I think he said it is $200,000,000 or more.


Adam Carr Bell: More than that.


The FINANCE MINISTER.: But, whatever it is, he has not ventured to move to strike out any of these items, but he stands up and denounces them all generally. He may say that as respects the transcontinental railway he did record his vote against it, but he did so at the same time that his leader brought forward another scheme that everybody knows was more expensive than the one that we proposed. If my hlon. friend goes back to the grand old county of Pictou, talks as he has talked to-night and denounces these railway subsidies, one can imagine an old Scotchman standing up and saying :	My friend, did you vote against
them ? No. Why didn't you ? You moved


Hon. Mr. FIELDING.: a resolution that this expenditure was extravagant, that the country was alarmed- why did you not record your vote ? My hon. friend will probably say : I could not very well do that, because some of these subsidies were going down into my own county. That would be all right, if my hon. friend would only take a broad-minded view of the matter. He knows that these subsidies are voted for his own county for useful and necessary works. In the vast territory which we have in Canada, no one man or set of men can have a knowledge of affairs from ocean to ocean which will enable them to judge of the requirements in the different provinces of Canada. But every section of this Dominion is represented in this House, and each group of members has its own local knowledge of its own province, so that it is possible for hon. gentlemen opposite to obtain a general idea of the wisdom or unwisdom of these expenditures. I feel quite sure, from what I know of the hon. member for Pictou, that if he thought that these expenditures were unwise, alarming, rash and extravagant, as he says in his 1'esolution, he would not be content with vague denunication, but he would move to strike the objectionable items out. True, my hon. friend asks : What is the good of doing that since we will vote vote against it? Yet that does not prevent my hon. friend from moving this resolution that we are probably going to vote against it. We have this vain, indefinite, academic resolution, which means nothing and leads to nothing. Unless my hon. friend is prepared to move a practical resolution, which would strike out a railway appropriation, or the appropriation for some great public work, I am afraid that the House and the country will not attach very much importance to the resolution which lie has moved. I am quite sure that the astute, intelligent people of Canada, not only in his province, but in all the other provinces, will say that when hon. gentlemen opposite take that ground they cannot be very serious in their denunciations of this lavish expenditure. But, Sir, if economy is desirable, and if it is not to be obtained from this government, where are the afflicted people of Canada to obtain it ? From hon. gentlemen opposite ? The wildest dream of the most unreasonable person in this Dominion would never expect a policy of economy from a Conservative government. From time immemorial they have declared for economy, but they have not practiced it and they do not even practice it now. Hon. gentlemen opposite know that I am calling their attention to a simple truth when I say tihat in nine cases out of ten when they rise to discuss some public expenditure, it is for the purpose of asking that the government do something on a more liberal scale than we have been doing in the past. We ask them, as we have done in the past, to point out anything that is wasteful or extravagant. They cannot do it. Usually the Public Accounts Committee

is the body that investigates these things. I venture to say that never in the history of this Dominion was there such a farce as the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee during the present session. We could not get the hon. gentlemen to attend. They used to come and introduce a motion that somebody be summoned, they would give notice that they intended to move to inquire into something, but when the time came for them to make the motion, they would not be there, or they had not called the witness, or something else would happen, and really the thing became laughable in the end. The Public Accounts Committee adjourned, and there was practically no inquiry into the public accounts of the past year. Why ? Not because hon. gentlemen opposite were not able, not because they were too generous to avoid an inquiry in the expenditures of the government, but simply and solely because they found there was no ground for attacking the expenditures of the government. I have said that if economy is not to be expected on our side there is very little prospect of it from hon. gentlemen opposite. I do not know a case in which hon. gentlemen opposite have advocated economy. We brought down what we' thought to be a wise proposal in reference to a great transcontinental railway. Hon. gentlemen opposite were not content to simply negative that, but they had to bring forward a policy of their own, which certainly could not have the merit of being more economical than the one the government proposed. We have a provision on the statute-book authorizing us to spend $750,000 for a fast Atlantic line, and we have been looking for somebody to do the work for this appropriation. Hon. gentlemen opposite stand up and move a resolution scoffing at the idea of our being able to get a fast Atlantic service for $750,000 a year, and telling us that we must get a fast line, cost what it will. Then, in order to make the thing if possible a trifle more ridiculous than that, about three-quarters of the hon. gentlemen opposite have been complaining of this government because we have not sent our good friend Captain Bernier to hunt up the north pole.


David Henderson: There is where you made a mistake.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There is a good consistent old Conservative. He is going to vote for this resolution declaring that the expenditures are alarming, and he is going to ask the government to spend a couple of hundred thousand dollars to send Captain Bernier to the north pole. Let him go through the record of the public service, and he will find that a suggestion of economy never comes from the side of hon. gentlemen opposite. Again and again we have heard complaints made that this government is not. dealing with sufficient liberality. The words of the hon. member for 458
Colchester (Mr. Gourley) are still ringing in our ears. My hon. friend from Pictou denounces as extravagant the railway subsidies which we brought down, and which we thought were fair and moderate. But the hon. member for Colchester made the declaration that they were paltry subsidies, and that if we had any respect for ourselves and for the country we would have brought down larger and more generous subsidies. My hon. friend simply expresses the general view of hon. gentlemen opposite. They move resolutions for economy, but they are vastly more extravagant than any hon. members who sit on this side of the House.
Let us look a little at the expenditures of the past. My hon. friend from Pictou has called attention to a fact, which we all know, that the expenditures during the years prior to 1S9C were much lower than they are now. Therefore, he assumes, because the expenditures were lower than they are now that theirs is a policy of economy and that ours is a policy of extravagance. Well, I do not think that is good logic. I think it is quite possible that a small sum might be spent in such a way as to constitute extravagance and that a large sum may be so spent as to constitute wise economy. It depends on whether you have the money to expend. That is a very vital matter. In the years 1894-5-6, when the economical government that my hon. friend is so anxious to praise were in power, although they spent less money than we did, they spent more money than they had to spend, and they added to the public debt. In 1894 they spent 103 per cent of their revenues. I am confining myself to what is called consolidated revenue fund. In 1895 they spent 112 per cent, or 12 per cent more than they had to spend, and in 1896 they spent a little more than 100 per cent-about 101 per cent. My hon. friend thinks that is economy. The fact is that, though we spent a great deal more money, we have the excuse that we had the money to spend. In 1897 we spent 101 per cent. That was the year during which the Liberal government did not have full control over the finances of the country. They came into power after the fiscal year had begun. They had to deal with the estimates prepared by their predecessors, and they did not have that full grasp of the finances of the country which they were able to obtain in later years, so that their expenditure for that year was a little more than their income; But in the following year, when the Liberals began to get their hands on the helm, we find that in the year 1898 this government spent only 95 per cent of its revenue ; in the year 1899 this government spent only 89 per cent of its revenue ; in the year 1900 this government spent only 84 per cent of its revenue ; in the year 1901 this government spent 89 per cent of its revenue ; in the year 1902 this government spent 87 per cent of its



revenue ; and in tlie year 1903, which has just closed, we spent 78 per cent of our revenue, as against the 101 per cent that the Conservative party spent in 1896. And yet the hon. gentleman (Mr. Bell) would have the country believe that, compared with the expenditure in 1896, our expenditure for the year 1903 was extravagant.
There is another way of viewing this matter. Let us take the public debt. After all these resolutions year after year from the opposition, as to the enormous obligations we are assuming and the enormous additions we are making to the public debt; the country would be prepared I suppose for a moderate increase per capita in the public debt. If I had to acknowledge that we had added two or three dollars per head to the debt of the people of Canada, it would not be anything that one need be ashamed of in view of the tremendous improvements which have been carried on during the past few years. But what are the facts ? In the year 1896 the net public debt stood at $50.96 per head ; in the year 1902 under a Liberal government, the net debt had fallen to $49.97, and in the year 1903, just closed, the public debt had fallen to $47.37 per head. Now, part of this decrease in 1903 is due to the readjustment of the accounts between the provinces and the Dominion, and therefore I do not take credit for it all; but if you make allowance for that you will And that even deducting that, "the net public debt of the Dominion stands to-day $47.97 per head as against $50.96 per head in the year 1896. That statement will surprise some of my hon. friends; it will surprise many people in this country who in consequence of such speeches as we have heard to-night, in consequence of such resolutions as the one now before the House, have been led into the impression that there is an enormous increase in the public debt of Canada.
I am glad to be able to say that as respects the year just closed, we have the most gratifying condition of affairs that it has ever fallen to the lot of a Finance Minister to announce. I have given the figures for the past year already, but I may be pardoned for giving them again. The revenue for the year 1903, ending June 30tli last, was $66,034,108.32; the expenditure of the ordinary character chargeable to the consolidated fund, was $51,707,172.89 showing a surplus of $14,326,935.43.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I repeat that the expenditure chargeable to consolidated fund, what is called the ordinary expenditure was $51,707,172.89; the charges to capital account, including all things charged to capital, were $10,367,163.01, making the total expenditure for the year $02.074,335.90. Now, in connection with this surplus, my hon. friend (Mr. Bell) had something to say about our charging bounties


William Stevens Fielding: to capital account, and he told us that in former times these bounties were charged to income. The fact is that in former times they were charged in such a mysterious way, that it was very hard to find them at all. They took the very curious form of a refund of duties. One would think that the common sense view is that a refund of duties is the paying back of money which has been paid, and how in the world the payment of a bounty which had never come into the treasury could properly be classified as a refund of duties, is one of these things which no fellow can understand. In former times, the Customs Department paid out of its receipts these bounties and thus reduced the customs revenue to that extent, which was a very curious method of bookkeeping.


James Clancy: Was it not after all paid out of consolidated fund, while the hon. gentleman charges it to capital ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: , Yes; it reduced the customs duties to that extent. That system continued because attention was not especially drawn to it, until the rearrangement of the Bounty Act, when we saw that we were going to pay very large sums in bounties. The sums that - were paid by the late government for iron and steel bounties, in proportion to the gross business of the country, were not in reality large; they did not affect the question of revenue, or expenditure, or surplus in any large degree. When, under the new condition of things, we found that large sums, running into the millions, were going to be paid for these bounties, we came to the conclusion that the old method of dealing with them was a mistake. Every business man in the House will say now, that whether they were charged to income or capital, the method of deducting them from the customs duties and treating them as a refund of duties, was unbusiness-like and improper. But, inasmuch as the bounties were based upon a sliding scale, contemplating their extinction in a short time, it was deemed well to charge them to capital account. In every financial statement I have presented to this House, I have invariably called attention to that point so that there could be no misunderstanding. I want to say, and it is notably so in this case, that whether you charge that to income or to capital, it would not have affected the general result, it would not have affected it perceptibly last year, because the income which was collected last year was sufficient to pay, and did pay all the ordinary expenditure of the country chargeable to consolidated fund, all the expenditures for bounties, all the expenditures for railway subsidies, all the expenditures for railway construction, all the expenditures of every shape and form were paid for last year out of the revenue of the country, and there was a large reduction in the public debt besides.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There was a decrease of the public debt on the operations of last year of $6,580,360.88; there was a further decrease in connection with the readjustment of the provincial accounts- and I have purposely separated the two-amounting to $3,305,450.24; making a total decrease in the net public debt of Canada at the close of the year as compared with the previous year, of $9,885,811.12.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am glad to be able to say that the outlook for the business of the current year is in most respects entirely satisfactory. We do not want to rely too much on the future. I quite realize that the time may come when business may not be as brisk as it has been in the past, but for the present, the outlook is by no means discouraging. I am glad to be able to say that for the new fiscal year, from the first of July up to the twentieth of October (yesterday), the revenue for that period, as compared with the revenue of the corresponding period last year, shows a handsome increase of $2,620,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If my hon. friend's financial showing is so very good, why is it that he is unable to borrow money in London to-day at less than 4* per cent, when we could borrow it a few years ago at 3 per cent ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The government of Great Britain have paid, I am told, 4rh pier cent for their money within the last month. My hon. friend is shutting his eyes to facts which the financial world understands, which the government of England understands and has to recognize. I have some difficulty in understanding the attitude of my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) on the question of surpluses. For some years efforts have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite to prove that there were no surpluses, that thiey were a delusion, and indeed, before the hon. gentleman had concluded his speech, he got back to the old ground and began to argue that this surplus was not, after all, a real surplus. The bulk of his argument was that we have very large surpluses and we should not have them, that it is bad financing, and that we should reduce taxation. Will my hon. friend tell me on what ai'ticles he will reduce taxation ? The great policy of hon. gentlemen opposite is to increase taxation. Every motion that they have made on the fiscal policy has been in the direction of higher duties, and if called upon to reduce taxation they would find themselves in a difficult position to discover an article on which they are willing to have the duty reduced. Does the hon. gentleman want the duty on sugar reduced? I will not press the question.


Adam Carr Bell: I think, under the circumstances, with such a surplus as the gov-458*
ernment has, it would be quite warrantable to reduce the duty on articles of general consumption.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I understand that my hon. friend, speaking in the name of the opposition, says that the duty should be reduced on sugar.. But the hon. member for East Grey (Mr. Sproule) says the duty on sugar should be increased for the benefit of the beet sugar industry. Now, if hon. gentlemen opposite are protectionists, if they want to encourage home industry, if they want to help the beet sugar industry, why do they want to cut down the measure of protection which the beet sugar industry already enjoys ? The hon. member for East Grey, in a former debate, said that they did not want to increase the duty, but only to have a bounty, but since that we have had the declaration again and again by hon. gentlemen opposite that a bounty is not the right way to aid an industry, that the true and only way to aid a home industry is by increasing the customs duties. Thus, if my hon. friend from Pictou speaks in the name of the Conservative party when he advocates the reduction of the duty on sugar be will have a difficult account to settle with the constituents of some of my hon. friends who' have sugar factories in their constituencies.


James Clancy: What is your attitude?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My attitude is disclosed in the budget speech and in the tariff as it stands. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) says we should not keep on these high taxes. Sir, this taxation is not so oppressively high. He falls into the error of assuming that because there is a great revenue there a great burden of taxation. The true way to look at that is that, so great has been the prosperity, so improved has been the purchasing x>ower of the people, that they have been able to consume all the products of our industries and to import many millions' worth from abroad, and in that way the revenue from customs has been greatly increased. But the customs tariff of this country in regard to most of the great staples, in so far as there has been any change at all, has been reduced. That is what hon. gentlemen opposite complain of; they complain that we are reducing the duties, yet my hon. friend says we are increasing the taxation. At one moment we are told that we are cutting down the duties and destroying the industries of the country and the next moment we have my hon. friend declaring that we are keeping the duties at too high a point.
Then he said that we should not charge these great works which we are carrying on now to income; they should be charged to capital: that, he said, is the very purpose of a capital account; raise just enough money to pay ordinary expenditure, and1 charge the balance to capital account. That would

be sound reasoning if you bad a tariff which was a burden to the people ; then if you raised money enough for ordinary expenditures and had to pay a great deal on capital account for great public works that course could be well justified. But why should you add to your capital account when it is not necessary? The complaint of hon. gentlemen opposite half the time Is that we are adding to the capital account more than we should. Did not my hon. friend (Mr. Bell), even before he concluded his own speech, complain that we are adding and charging too much to our capital account ? But, Sir, if you look at these figures you will find that the tariff and the taxation are not a burden. I will make the statement that the people of this country are not today complaining of undue taxation. I will state that, except perhaps on a few items the tariff is giving good satisfaction generally. The complaints we receive are not that the taxation is too high, but that the taxation is not high enough, and these complaints come from our friends opposite. Why should we go on charging things to capital account when we can provide for a large portion of .them out of revenue under a tariff . policy which is not burdensome V We can collect these large sums from year to year, and we have been able to provide for our ordinary expenditure and for a good portion of our capital account out of our income. We do not think we have charged anything to capital account which is not legitimate; but we were not prepared, in view of all that has been said for the last three or four sessions, for the sudden right about face which my hon. friend took to-night, when he spent fifteen minutes in condemning us because we did not charge more to capital account. What is the reason of our being able to charge these things to our income account ? We have been able to avoid going into debt to a degree which would otherwise be necessary, and by avoiding going into debt we avoid also the increase of interest charges. My hon. friend made some references to the increased charges for the public debt. I have here a statement showing the outlook for the present year with regard to1 our interest on the public debt. X had prepared this statement in answer to a question put on the paper by my hon. friend from Three Rivers (Mr. Bureau), but I was not in the House to-day when questions were reached, and I shall take advantage of this opportunity to give the answer :
For the year 1902-3 we paid for interest on public debt	$11,068,139 17
And credited the province of Ontario for interest on trust funds pending settlement	 167,288 14
Total	$11,235,427 31


William Stevens Fielding: When the main estimates for the present year, were prepared some months ago, before the adjustment of the provincial accounts, the probable sum required for interest was placed at	$11,133,407 52
A revised estimate to-day places
it at	 11,057,700 00
Showing a decrease as compared with last year's payments of-	177,727 31
But in computing the actual interest we must take into account the increased sums on which interest will be received.
We will receive for interest on stock purchased for sinking
funds during the year	
105,000	00For interest on new advances to the Montreal Harbour Commission	
27,000	00
For interest on Debt accounts of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, now established-[DOT]
Ontario	
72.319	44Quebec	
58,944	38$	263,263 82Deducting this increased interest, which we will thus receive, from the amount of interest to be paid, the net result, approximately, will be a reduction of interest amounting to	$	440,990 31
My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Bell) laboured under the difficulty that he was unable to take into account the great changes that have come over this country since 1896.


James Clancy: The hon. gentleman claims a saving from the adjustment of accounts between Ontario and the Dominion, but it is a mere book-keeping matter.


The MINISTER OP FINANCE.: No, it is an absolute sum placed to the credit of the Dominion. It is a readjustment of the provincial account, and it is so much money less to be paid by the Dominion. My hon. friend should take into account the great change whicli has come over this country since 1896. The Canada of that day was vastly different from the Canada of today. The population of the Canada of that day was 5,086,061. We have not the exact population of to-day, we 'have to take it approximately, but a proper approximate statement is 5,528,847. The increase in population is not so great as we would like, hut in that respect we are making up for lost time, and the population is likely to increase much more rapidly than formerly. In 1890 we received 16,835 immigrants. In 1903 we received 128,364. In 1896 we had a revenue on consolidated fund of $36,618,590. In 1903 that revenue amounted to $66,034,108. In the year 1896, there were sales of public lands in Manitoba, the North-west Territories and British Columbia, to the amount of $93,303. In 1903, the sale of these lands represented $313,960. The total imports in the year 1890 were $118,011,508. In 1903,

under the great progress and prosperity of the country, at a time when our factories were busy and our people employed as never before in the history of the Dominion, the purchasing power of the people had so increased that they consumed more home produce and increased their imports from $118,011,508 to $241,214,961. The total exports in 1890 were $121,013,852, and in 1893 they amounted to $225,849,724. Our exports of home products, which perhaps is the better test of the prosperity and the activity of our people, amounted in 1896 to $109,915,337, and in 1903 they increased to $214,401,674. Our exports of products of the farm and animals and their products in 1896 amounted to $55,378,407, and in 1903 they were $114,441,863. Then take the article of manufacture, the very industry that lion, gentlemen opposite have tried to make themselves the special patrons of, which they claim the particular credit of nursing and nourishing. In 1896 our exports of manufactured products amounted to $10,222,S77 and last year they amounted to $20,624,967. The total trade of this country, which in 1896 was only $239,025,360, increased last year to $467,064,685. But though my hon. friends opposite seem unable to open their eyes to this vast change, the people of this Dominion are not so blind. The great mass of the people see these things, not only by the evidence of statistics, but by the evidence of the hum of industry which prevails almost in all parts of the Dominion, and they know that in this changed condition a very liberal expenditure is necessary. I remember on one occasion when my right hon. friend the Prime Minister was on a tour through the province of Ontario, observing in one of the very beautiful villages which was decorated for the event, a streamer stretched across the main street showing these words : ' Wise expenditure is true economy.' There was philosophy in that. There is a misunderstanding in some quarters as to what this economy means. Parsimony is not economy. It was not economy in 1894-5 and 6 to spend more money than we had, and it is not extravagance to-day for this government to spend a great deal less money than they are collecting. There is a policy that scatteretli and yet increaseth, and there is a policy that withholdeth but tendetli to poverty.


James Clancy: I shall require to take only a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to prove that the hon. gentleman is giving us to-night an exhibition of the complete reversal of all tire doctrines he preached in opposition. He tells us now that true economy consists in a large expenditure of money. Was that the doctrine of the Liberal party before 1896? Why, according to that party then, every dollar expended by the Conservative government of that day was wasted. The hon. gentleman opened his speech by telling us that certain predictions were made as to what
would happen the country if the Liberal party came into power. Let me ask him if the Liberal party had carried out their policy, would thes a predictions not have come true ? He knows that the only reasons these predictions were not fulfilled was because the government went hack on their tariff policy. Not one of the pledges they made did they fulfil, and these hon. gentlemen, now, with their usual modesty, boast that they have not fulfilled them. The hon. gentleman has told us that liberal expenditure is true economy.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Wise economy.	*


James Clancy: Well, I will accept the qualification which the hon. gentleman now makes. In 1896, when this government took office our expenditure was $44,334,000 aud it now is $62,084,000. What is there to show in the country for that expenditure ? What great public work has been constructed ? What is there to show for this immense jump from $44,000,000 in 1896 to $62,000,000. I challenge the hon. gentleman to point to anything which stands out prominently as an asset to Canada for that large amount of money. He cannot do it. The money lias been dribbled away in a wasteful manner in making works that are practically of no benefit to Canada.
1 come now to the crucial point in the bon. gentleman's speech, the only strong point, it seems to me, the only other point requiring an answer. He stated and restated that the Conservatives bad spent more than they had received, while the Liberals were justified in doing all they bad, because they spent less than they received. Am I right in so interpreting the hon. gentleman's speech ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: And I gave the figures for it. [DOT]


James Clancy: Yes, and I will give the hon. gentleman the figures now. The year 1898 was the first year when the hon. gentleman claimed a surplus. The receipts for that year were $40,556,510, and the expenditure was $45,334,281, or $4,777,771 more than the receipts.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: My hon. friend (Mr. Clancy) knows that he is including the capital expenditure.


James Clancy: Certainly.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The ban. member for Pictori complained that we were charging too much to capital. In my remarks I made a clear distinction, and where the expenditure was on consolidated fund account, I said so.	[DOT]


James Clancy: That makes no difference. I am giving the total receipts and total expenditure. Let us not deceive ourselves or the country. The figures I have given show that, in 1898, when the hon. gentleman

claimed a surplus of $1,722,000 in round numbers, be bad actually spent $4,777,771 more than be bad received. 1 am taking the accounts as they are kept in England, in the United States-in fact in every civilized country except Canada. Now take the next year, in which the bon. gentleman said, be bad spent only 95 per cent of the whole income. As a matter of fact, be bad spent about four and three-quarter millions more than be had received. The income was $46,743,000, and the expenditure $51,542,000, or an excess of expenditure over receipts of $4,799,000. In 1900, the income of the Dominion of Canada was $51,031,000, and the expenditure $52,717,000, or an excess of expenditure over receipts of $1,186,000. Now in 1901 the receipts were $52,510,332, and the payments, $57,982,800, or an excess of expenditure of $5,406,000. Again, in 1902, the expenditure was $58,052,000 and the payments were $03,970,000-payments $5,918,000 more than the receipts. Yet the bon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Fielding) rises here and cooly and blandly tells the House and the country that during these years he spent less than he received. Does the bon. gentleman adhere to that statement ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The bon. gentleman asks a question I have no hesitation in answering. I gave the figures with regard to the late government and the present government on precisely the same basis.


James Clancy: For the purpose of what I am now saying, it is not necessary to compare the present government with the former one. I am taking the hon. gentleman on his own statement with regard to the receipts and expenditures of the whole of Canada, and I tell him that in the year when he says he spent 95 per cent of the whole income, he speqt four and three-quarter millions more than he received. The hon. gentleman cannot shelter himself behind the fact that he can take any sum he pleases and charge it up to capital account, and so declare a surplus of as many millions as he thinks will suit him. Will the hon. gentleman claim a surplus now for the period from 1897 to 1902 ? I am leaving out the last year, because I wish to deal with that separately. The hon. gentleman has claimed surpluses during that period to the amount of $27,971,000. To be perfectly fair, I am going to take the sinking fund that was applied on the public debt, although that was a statutory expenditure, and one made by former governments as well as by this one. If we take the six years before the present year, we find that the present government has paid about $14,000,000 to the sinking fund, while the former government paid something over $12,000,000. If we deduct the amount paid by this government on sinking fund, $14,459,000, during these years, from the total surpluses of the years, $27,791,000, there is still the sum of $13,331,000 to be accounted for. Now let me ask the hon.


James Clancy: gentleman what has become of that surplus ? I think this would be a very proper time for him to account for it. On a former occasion I asked the hon. gentleman the same question, and now I ask him again. What lias become of that money ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am surprised that the hon. gentleman should ask me to explain a thing that is so easily understood. Each and every one of these surpluses was applied to the capital account, and so, to that amount, additions which otherwise would have been made to the debt were abolished.


James Clancy: Ah ! Now we have the solution. The hon. gentleman charged it up to capital account-that was a piece of book-keeping. But that did not prevent the increase of the public debt, so the hon. gentleman had no surplus at all. For the first time the hon. gentleman has made perfectly clear the fraud that has been perpetrated on the people in declaring these surpluses. Well, he lias a surplus for the year 1903, not of $14,320,000, as he claimed, but of $4,949,770. His receipts for the year were $66,034,000, and his expenditure $02,084,000. These are the figures, yet the hon. gentleman declares that he has a surplus of $14,000,000. Will not the little boys In the schools laugh?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think they will.


James Clancy: They will laugh-and if they do not laugh they will sneer-at calculation which shows receipts of $66,000,000, expenditures of $62,000,000, and a surplus of receipts over expenditures of $14,326,000. Is it not about time that we put an end to that sort of farce ? Is it not about time that we should tell the tax-payers the whole truth ? Is it not about time we should cease to make appologies like that of the hon. gentleman, telling the people that there are surpluses, when, as a matter of fact, the expenditure exceeds the income ? I challenge the hon. gentleman to say that except the year that 'has just closed, that during the whole period the Liberal party has been in power, there has been a single year in which the expenditure did not exceed the receipts. Yet the hon. gentleman gives as a sole justification of the large expenditure of this country, that his receipts were larger than the expenditure. I have no hesitation in saying that he is practising deception on the people of this country. It is not a fair statement, and it is not an accurate statement. I challenge the hon. gentleman now to deny that during the period from 1897 to 1902 there was a single year in which the hon. gentleman did not expend a sum in excess of that received, and that during these years the excess did not aggregate $27,791,281. Yet that was the sole excuse the hon. gentleman gives for the increased expenditure. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to say a word about the Public Accounts Committee. The

lion, gentleman said that the Public Accounts Committee had become a farce.
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. Not the Public Accounts, but the committee.


James Clancy: Well, the Public Accounts Committee of which the hon. gentleman was a distinguished member, became a farce, he says. Well, I am forced to agree that that is to some extent true. I know of more than one occasion on which that hon. gentleman turned it into a farce ; I know of occasions on which the hon. gentleman did not go there to assist the Public Accounts Committee in unravelling and detecting the wrongs that were committed under the government, but he went there to block the way, and by every means in his power to prevent an examination of that character. I remind him of one case when a witessi was asked to state the truth with regard to an account, and the Finance Minister was the first to come to his assistance and tell the witness that he need not answer the question. The hon. gentleman knows the case I refer to.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Will the hon. gentleman state the case ?


James Clancy: It was the case of Mr. Rochester, when he was asked what sums of money he paid out other than appeared in his accounts. If he had answered that question there would have been no trouble in putting our finger upon the raid that had been made upon the public treasury. The Minister of Finance was the first to rise in the Public Accounts Committee and to tell that witness that he need not answer the question. Yet the hon. gentleman comes here and says that the Public Accounts Committee is a farce.
The MINISTER OB' FINANCE. Does the hon. gentleman not know that that incident- which he has not described I think correctly-had relation to his friend the ex-Minister of Public Works that he now takes to his bosom, and that it occurred a year ago, not in the recent committees which are referred to ?


James Clancy: Well, if the hon. gentleman means to insinuate that there was something wrong on the part of the ex-Minister of Public Works


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No. I do not.


James Clancy: Then why does the hon. gentleman refer to it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I refer to it because it happened to be a fact.


James Clancy: Then it must have some meaning. I am not denying that it was a case in which the department of the exMinister of Public Works was concerned. The hon. gentleman is making reference to it now with the evident intent of casting some blame upon the ex-Minister of Public Works.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.


James Clancy: Then his reference has no meaning. Was he honest then when he told the witness not to answer the question ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I am not casting any reflection on the ex-Minister of Public Works. The hon. gentleman was casting a reflection upon him and I was defending him from what I thought was an aspersion. But all that was a matter of a year ago, and my remarks had reference to the Public Accounts Committee of the present session.


James Clancy: Well, now, the hon. gentleman wants to make the short memory plea.
I am not dealing alone with the Public Accounts Committee of the present year. I think the hon. gentleman might have taken in past! years. But let us look at the present year. This has been a busy session, there has been no time to give to the Public Accounts Committee, or very little. But what has been disclosed in that committee that the hon. gentleman calls a farce ? I wish the member for West Middlesex (Mr. Calvert) was in his place. What was disclosed there only a. few days ago is a fair sample of the waste of public money that has gone on in this country with regard to the census. Why, Sir, one of the commissioners that was appointed by hon. gentlemen opposite, came down here and was examined before the Public Accounts Committee, and what was he forced to tell ? He was forced to tell in every case where a man had put in an account that he never questioned it, but still he paid it. He was forced to admit that they had hired horses in little villages of 200 or 300 inhabitants to drive the enumerators around for the purpose of taking the census when everybody knows that there was no horse hire, everybody knows that, it was a stuffing of the accounts, everybody knows it was a pillaging of the public treasury, yet the hon. gentleman says the committee was a farce. That is only one case that was brought out where the public treasury was pillaged. I say, Mr. Speaker, that if time had permitted ns to go into a large range of the public expenditures of this country, we would have discovered a great many cases of which the one I have just mentioned was only a sample. But there was not time, and the only case that we did examine was of the most frightful character ever disclosed before the Public Accounts Committee of this country.
Now, Sir, it is very amusing to see the hon. gentleman set up a defence of that kind. He says, we have been taunted about the Fast Atlantic Service, we are told by hon. members of the opposition that we should have a Fast Atlantic Service at any cost. Well, Sir, the hon. gentleman threw away the only opportunity we ever had in Canada to have a Fast Atlantic Service at a fair and moderate price. The hon. gentleman declared that the price was too high, and

bow they have lost the chance, and they are unable to get a service at twice as much as they could have got it for. Yet he taunts the opposition with saying that we are bound to have a service at any cost. This country does require a service, and if the hon. gentlemen threw away the opportunities, and if they have to pay double the cost of a service now, I would like to know with what propriety he can taunt this side with being willing to give twice as much as it could have been obtained for before. How is he going to answer for throwing away the opportunities that were given him, and of which he was an advocate for a number of years past ? The hon. gentleman threw away every chance they had of getting a service, so I do not think he takes the right position in blaming the opposition. Now, 1 want to call the hon. gentleman's attention 1o one matter on which he laid great stress : and I see the Minister of Customs sitting beside him who once made a similar chal-lege to the Conservative opposition. When we complain of the expenditure the Minister of Finance says :	Why don't you rise in
your place and move for a reduction. Did the Liberal party do anything of that kind during the 18 years they were in opposition ? During that whole period these able and vigilant gentlemen sat in this House. I see before me now one of them who never lost an opportunity of making a point against the government of the day, who is now an able minister and who was not particularly wanting in his duty in courage or in knowledge. During that whole period of 18 years $603,000,000 in round numbers were expended. Let me ask the hon. gentleman (Hon. Mr. Paterson) how much of that was challenged during that whole period. Out of that sum of $603,000,000, but $447,000 was challenged. There were no votes against subsidies-not one. No hon. gentleman ever proposed to vote against a railway subsidy during that period. I think it is about time hon. gentlemen ceased making challenges of that kind. The Hon. Minister of Finance is unwittingly slandering the Hon. Minister of Customs because the hon. Minister of Customs was in the House before 1896 and was actively in opposition. I think I should come to the defence of those hon. gentlemen who were so derelict in their duty, who sat here while this country was being robbed, while $600,000,000 was being expended and who only had the courage to challenge a vote during that whole period in respect of less than half a million dollars. Now, I wish to say a word in regard to the prosperity of the country upon which the hon. minister has laid very great stress. He has told us what lias been done for the country. He says that we have expended money for the purpose of facilitating the business of Canada. I purpose to make a comparison in regard to agricultural products which is the main feature of our exports. It will be seen that we stand exact-Mr. CLANCY.
Iy in the same relative position that we occupied in 1896. I challenge the hon. gentleman to deny the fact. In 1896 Great Britain imported horses, cattle, sheep, bacon, hams, beef, mutton, pork, meats all other, lard, poultry and game, butter, cheese, milk condensed, &c., margarine, eggs, hides raw, sheep pelts, tallow, bristles, wool, wheat, barley, oats, pease, beans, corn, flour wheat, oatmeal, corn meal, grain and meal other, seeds, clover and grass, flax seed, hops, apples, cherries, grapes, pears, plums, other fruits, onions, potatoes, tomatoes, other vegetables, oil seed cake, flax, and fish. The total imports into the United Kingdom of these articles were $827,352,902. This of course includes fish. During that period Canada exported to Great Britain $53,254,758 or 6'43 per cent. Taking the total imports of the same articles of animal produce into the United Kingdom, the value in 1901 was $976,582,901. Of .this value the total amount imported from Canada was $66,446,101 or 6-SO per cent or less than 1 of 1 per cent of an increase during that period. Notwithstanding this vast expenditure of money we stand relatively in the same position as in 1896. But the hon. gentleman opposite to-night stated that the people were so prosperous that they have not only produced a great deal but that they have largely imported. The fact of the matter is, as the hon. gentleman knows, that the people of Canada have imported a large number of articles which they should have produced. They have been consuming foreign goods and there is not much in the boast that we have largely increased our import of goods which should have been produced under a proper policy in this country. I do not propose to pursue this subject any further than to say that we have an enormous expenditure, an alarming expenditure, which, as stated by my hon. friend from Pictou. represents no less a sum than $62,000,000 in round numbers. I challenge the hon. gentleman now In conclusion to put his finger upon one great service which is being performed and to show' wliat benefit Canada has from this increased expenditure. 1 say that it is impossible for the hon. gentleman tor his friends to show that as a result of this enormously increased expenditure, nearly double what it was in 1896, anything lias been done for the people that will stand to the credit of the government or that will confer some lasting benefit upon the country. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that the expenditure has been dribbled out for. the most useless purposes and that Canada has been called upon to pay immense sums for no substantial purpose. Just look at the sum which the taxpayer Iras to pay at the present time and w'liich he had to pay in 1896. The taxpayer had to pay in 1896 $7.50 per head for each man, woman and child. In 1903 every man, woman and child lias to pay $12.30 or $4.73 per head more than was paid in 1896. I repeat again that there is

absolutely nothing to show by way of a return for this immense tax put upon the people of the country. Hon. gentlemen opposite may say that we did not challenge it. As has been stated by my hon. friend from Pictou the opposition cannot lengthen the session surely beyond what it is now by dividing the House. The best way to indicate dissent is for an lion, member upon his responsibility to stand in his place and condemn that expenditure. Hon. gentlemen opposite are not slow in quoting speeches against us. Hon. gentlemen, when they go to the country, do not require to have votes. They will say that Mr. so and So made this statement and that they are prepared to hold them to it. We have not complained that hou. gentlemen in the past did not give evidence of their opposition to expenditures because they did not divide the House. It was they who raised the question and not we. I have nothing to say beyond this that we will leave it to the people of the country to decide they will have before them a set of promises from lion, gentlemen opposite and a set of performances that would not do much credit to any government even of less pretensions.


Andrew Broder: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to detain the House long but I want to refer to one case to show the reason why the Public Accounts Committee may have been somewhat of a farce.
I refer to the case of an individual who is acting as private secretary for Mr. Charle-son. What are the facts in connection with the conduct of this man whose name is Gobeil. The Auditor General reports that he refuses to give any vouchers for his expenditure. At page 333-323 of the Auditor General's Report for 1900, we And that this man sent $2,809.93 for sundries, supplies, &c., and that he absolutely refused to produce any vouchers. Why is this private secretary whose salary was raised from $700 a year to $2,400 without any examination, why is he allowed to go about the country and spend his time at Syracuse, N. Y., and elsewhere, and have his expenses paid by the government 1 What is he doing there for Mr. Ckarleson ? In the Auditor Gen eral's Report for the year ending 30th June, 1899, the Auditor General complains that this private secretary is allowed to break all the rules governing his case. He goes to Vancouver or wherever he likes, he spends all the money he likes, and he produces no vouchers. And yet. the Minister of Finance talks about the Public Accounts Committee being a farce. Of course it is a farce; what is the use of having a fire without wood; what is the use of having an investigation without vouchers ? The government want it to be a farce, and the greater farce it is the better they are pleased. Why is it that the private secretary of a contractor, paid out of the people's money, is allowed to go wherever he likes, and allowed to refuse giving vouchers ?
Does he go to Syracuse for the good of his health, or for the good of the health of some hon. gentlemen connected with the department ? It would not be healthy to have him here while the Public Accounts Committee is in session. There is not the slightest doubt that the Minister of Public Works, who is not now in the House, but who ought to be, knows very well for whose health this man goes to Syracuse. This government does not want vouchers to be produced; they have a horror of them.
House divided on amendment (Mr. Bell).
YEAS : Messieurs
Alcorn.
Avery.
Ball,
Birkett.
Blain,
Borden (Halifax), Boyd,
Broder,
Calvin,
Carscallen,
Clancy,
Clarke,
Cochrane.
Fowler.
Gourley,
Henderson.
Hughes (Victoria), Ingram.
Johnston (Cardwell), Haulbach,
LSonard,
MacLiaren (Perth), Monk,
Morin.
Richardson,
Robinson (Elgin), Sproule,
Taylor,
yrooman,
Wilson.-30.
NAYS : Messieurs
Bazinet,
Beith,
Beland,
Belcourt.
Bernier,
Borden (Sir Frederick), Bourhonnais,
Brown,
Bureau,
Calvert,
Campbell,
Oarbonneau,
Champagne,
Christie,
Copp,
Delisle,
Demers (Levis), Demers (St. John), Desjardins,
Douglas,
Dugas,
Emmerson.
Erb,
Fielding,
Fitzpatrick,
Galliher.
G'auvreau,
Geoffrion,
Gibson.
ITarwood,
Kendall,
Lang,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid), Laurier (L'Assomption) Lavergne,
LeBlanc,
Loy,
Macdonald,
Mackie.
Macpherson.
McCool,
McCreary,
Mclsaac,
Marcil (Bagot),
Marcil (Bonaventure), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Mignault,
- Monet,
Morrison.
Paterson,
Power,
Prefontaine.
Puttee,
Reid (Restigouche), Roche (Halifax), * Ross (Ontario),
Ross (Riraouski). Rousseau,
Schell.
Scott,
Talbot.
Thompson (Haldimand and Monck),
Tobin.
Tolmie,
Tucker,
Turcot,
, Wright.-68.
PAIRS :
Ministerial.
Logan,
Hyman,
Johnston (Lambton), Charlton.
Sutherland (Essex), Harty,
Opposition.
Lefurgey.
Gilmour.
Simmons.
Tisdale.
Northrup,
Reid (Grenville),

Stewart,	Bruce,
Wade.	Smith (Wentworth),
Parmelee.	Pope,
Cos-tigan,	Hale,
Heyd,	Toliton,
Grant,	McGowan.
Davis,	Roche (Marquette),
Hol-mes,	Kendrey.
Murray.	Osier,
Sutherland (Hon. J.),	Haggart,
Ethier,	LaRiVidre,
Gallery,	Lennox,
Johnston (Cape Breton),	Lavell.
McCarthy,	McIntosh,
Turgeon,	Kidd.
Matheson,	Halliday,
Smith (Vancouver),	Clare,
Ross (Victoria, N.S.),	Brock,
Cartwright (Sir Rich'd),	Tupper (Sir C. H.),
Dyment,	McCormick.
McColl,	Ward.
Fraser.	Bell,
Guthrie.	Porter,
Mulock (Sir William),	Barker.
Cowan,	Pringle,
Maclaren (Huntingdon),	Rosamond.
Riley,	Earle,
Stephens,	Seagram.
Gould.	Thomson (Grey),
Fortier,	Roddick,
McGugan.	Hackett.
Girard,	Casgrain,
McEwen,	Sherritt,
Bickerdike,	Bennett,
Fisher,	Maclean,
German,	Lancaster,
MacKinnon.	Wilmot,
Lewis,	Robinson (Northumberland),
Oliver,	Kemp,
Russell.	Ganong,
Madore,	Culbert,
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.
Consolidation of Dominion statutes, whioh may be paid notwithstanding anything contained in the Civil Service Act or in the Act respecting the Department of Public Printing and Stationery, $16,000.
Edward Frederick Clarke: Who are the commissioners ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I gave the names of the commissioners a few days ago when this matter was up in another form. The commissioners are : Mr. New-combe, the Deputy Minister of Justice ; Mr. Power, another employee of the Department of Justice ; Mr. Cameron, Registrar of the Supreme Court; Sir Henry Strong, ex-Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ; Mr. Sirois, of Quebec; Mr. Roscoe, and Mr. St. Louis, secretary of the commission, the names of the others were given on a previous occasion.


Mr. BLAIN.: How much is it expected that the revision will cost ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It is very hard to say; the last revision took place in 1886, and cost, if I remember rightly, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $48,000. We have, up to the present, expended in connection with this consolidation the sum of
$16,000. We expect to keep within the $48,000, notwithstanding the fact that we have to revise the statutes from 1886 down to the present time, 17 years. That vote of $20,000 has been in the estimates for the last four or five years. In 1902-3 we expended $12,722.38; in 1903-4 we expended $3,398.71, so that the total expenditure up to the present time is $16,121.09.


Mr. MONK.: How far has the work advanced and wbat now remains to be done ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I am now speaking from memory, and my hon. friend will find that I gave all of these details and that they are on ' Hansard.' My recollection is that there are about 154 statutes to be revised, and of that number 17 have been completely revised and 38 have been prepared and are ready now to lie passed upon. They are partially revised, and the i whole work is expected to be completed next year.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Why should it cost over $40,000 to revise 150 statutes ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I estimate that it will cost $40,000 odd, because the revision of 1886 cost $48,000.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: We must do better than this.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: We will do better than this.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think that is a fair comparison, because you have now as a basis the Revised Statutes of 1886. That was the first revision and it naturally took a long time. I think that more than 150 statutes were revised in 1886.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: I do not remember the exact number; at all events, this is equally important and equally expensive with the work done in 1886, if not more so. There are now seventeen years of statutes to be revised.


Robert Laird Borden: In the other case there were 20 years of statutes to be revised, and that was the first revision; a great many of the statutes that are now being revised are mere amendments to particular chapters of the revised statutes. I think the work, while equally important, would be less laborious and would occupy less time than the work of 1886.
Galops rapids-to complete channel. $60,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This matter was discussed on a previous occasion. It is for some improvements in the Galops rapids, where we have spent a vast sum of money. One hon. member in this House expresssed the opinion that this was not a useful work, but the view taken by the department is that it is useful, and it does seem a pity that for the small sum still required we should abandon the work. We have spent $978,000 to improve the


Andrew Broder: Galops rapids, and we are advised that this hon. minister to make a note of this, and will complete the work.	another session bring in a vote for it.


Mr. CALVIN.: Is any record kept in the department of the number of vessels using this channel ? I am inclined to think it is neglected and not used at all.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have no record of vessels using it, but we have a report from the engineer of the department in charge of the St. Lawrence, who thinks it is very important that we should finish up the work by making this expenditure.
Trent canal-construction. $360,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to complete the work of construction on the different sections, comprising sections 2 and 3, and also the steel work for the hydraulic lock on the Peterborough section.


Samuel Hughes: Are there any new contracts this year ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, but very considerable operations are still going on.


Samuel Hughes: What is the report of the engineer on Lhe feasibility of connecting Rice lake and Port Hope instead of going down to Trenton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I shall be glad to furnish the report. It is in substance favourable to the Trenton section rather than Port Hope. I shall see that the hon. member for East Durham (Mr. Ward) has access to it.
Trent canal-to build a new entrance pier at Peterborough, $1,600.
To build entrance pier at Burleigh, $1,200.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These are small repairs connected with the old works.
To build entrance pier at Lovesick, $1,200.
To dredge shoals between Peterborough and Heeley's Palls, $2,800.
To dredge sheds at Ketehawana and Buck-horn lake, $2,800.
Rebuilding dam at Peterborough, $4,800.


Samuel Hughes: 1 would ask the hon. minister if he has any report about opening up the waters north of Balsam lake ? I do not know of any part of Canada which would derive equal benefit from an expenditure of $100,000. Such an expenditure would open up 100 miles of waterway, by building four or five locks north of Balsam lake. We have voted cheerfully large sums for building docks, bonusing railways, to mills and all that sort of thing in the maritime provinces and the province of Quebec, but I do not know of any part of the Dominion, in which so large an area would be so materially benefited by the expenditure of this sum, as would the counties of Victoria and Haliburton by the construction of four or five small locks, at the outside seventy-five feet. I would ask the


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What depth would you get ?


Samuel Hughes: In the river there is lots of water. Five feet in the canal would be plenty. All we want is to get boats in and out to move down the cribs of hardwood timber. There would also be a tourist passenger traffic in that district. At the same time, I would ask him to make a note of this fact. The system of opening and closing those locks is not the most modern. The superintendent says they are improving the system, but at present it is very tedious.


The MINISTER OF CUSTOMS.: Which locks ?


Samuel Hughes: All the locks along the entire system. In the old days the Trent canal was rather pooh-poohed, but I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman from Ontario is a strong advocate of it today. He will find that Lake Skugog, that large lake in his own town, will be immensely benefited when this lock is opened up. I am glad to see that he is a strong supporter of the construction of 'this work.
Railways and Canals'-chargeable to capital-Ratlways-Intercolonial-to dredge and ballast rock at deep water terminus at Halifax, $25,000.
The! MINISTER OF FINANCE. This is made necessary by the increasing draft of the steamers. There is a good wharf there, and what used to be a good depth of water. But with the increasing size of the Allan steamers it is necessary to dredge to a depth of 30 feet.
National Transcontinental Railway-to provide for surveys and other expenses, $500,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is the first installment of the expenditure on the government's portion of the new railway. This amount is designed to cover only incidental expenses and surveys. Of course, there will be no work in construction until the House meets again. In the meantime it is intended to organize and send out survey parties.


Samuel Hughes: I see by the Montreal ' Star ' of this evening that Mr. Hays says he has survey parties all over the road. Is the government paying for these ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No arrangement has been made with respect to that. But if the Grand Trunk have made surveys which can be properly utilized, I tfiink we should be glad to have the work advanced to that extent and to utilize the result. And if we utilize the work of the surveys, no doubt some arrangement will be made to bear our fair share of the expense.


Samuel Hughes: The government have not selected the commissioners or the chief engineer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: 
Frederick Debartzch Monk: Has the hon. minister that estimate here ? When does he propose commencing work ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Of course, construction cannot be commenced until we have the survey. I suppose that immediately after the enactment of the measure steps will be taken to push the surveys forward. No doubt something can be done this autumn and winter to make provision for numerous surveys. Whatever can be done will be pushed forward with all speed.


Mr. MORIN.: Are the surveys below Quebec sent out by the government or by the Grand Trunk Pacific?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They will be sent out on behalf of the government through the instrumentality of the commissioners.


Jean-Baptiste Morin: I understood the hon. gentleman to say there were some there already.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Some between Winnipeg and Quebec. I am not aware that any have been sent out by the Grand Trunk east of Quebec.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: I would like to see the estimate to which the hon. gentleman referred, to see how the work is to be divided. Of course, if this were a small sum I would not ask it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The deputy minister in his estimate has not designated any particular points where the parties will be established. But he has estimated that twenty parties could be usefully employed between Winnipeg and Moncton- fourteen between Winnipeg and Quebec and six between Quebec and Moncton. He has not designated the places where they will commence work.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: But it must be divided into sections.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the work will be arranged by sections under the chief engineer, just like any other railway work, and a large number of parties will be put in the field to push the work with all speed.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When will the work of survey begin ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: As soon as we can have the surveyors appointed.


William Stevens Fielding: There is every disposition to push the work. I should think that immediately after the session parties will be put in the field and the work proceeded with as long as the season will permit.


Samuel Hughes: The Montreal ' Star' says :


Mr.  C. M.@: Hays, general manager and second vice-president of the Grand Trunk Railway, has made the following statement regarding the company's plans for completing the Grand Trunk Pacific :-
The reconnaisance survey is proceeding vigorously and, in fact, has been, ever since early last spring. We have between fifteen and twenty parties in the field, some of whom have about completed the work of their division ; others will keep on all through the winter. Great care has been taken with a view of obtaining a line with a minimum grade, not exceeding 4 per cent

I presume that means 4-10ths per cent.
-or twenty feet to the mile, about the same as the maximum grade between Toronto and Montreal, and with ho greater than two or three degree curves.
On some portions of the route where the country is comparatively unknown', for instance, in- the Lake Nepigon district, owing to the lack of transportation facilities, supplies are difficult to obtain, and progress is not as great as otherwise would be the case.
Plans for construction at' the point at which a beginning will he made are dependent on the completion of surveys. We have now the territory pretty well covered. The first parties we sent out, which were started before the government policy as to the eastern division was developed, were located between Winnipeg and North Bay, the theory being that that was the section of country that was most in need of additional facilities, and while it is undoubtedly true that, for some years to come, a large proportion of the grain crop of the North-west will move out by water during the season of navigation, there is to-day a very considerable quantity moving by rail north of Lake Superior and this quantity will be increased in a constantly growing volume as rail facilities for the economical and expeditious movement of the traffic are provided. The new line with its 4 per cent grade

Meaning, no -doubt, 4-10ths per -cent.
-will- have great advantages in this respect.
Our surveying parties are also well distributed across the territory from Winnipeg west and construction on that portion of the line will he pushed as soon as the results of our surveys are known, as also the construction of the branches from a port on Lake Superior (which port is yet to be determined) to a junction with the eastern division and a line from North Bay, north also to intersect the eastern division.
As to plans and intentions in connection with the work on the eastern division, I shall have to refer you to the government, that portion of the undertaking being, as you are aware, under their control.
While it is dependent on conditions generally, the results of surveys, the situation as regards labour, movement of supplies, material, &c., it is not likely that the road will be completed short of five years.



OCT'OBEE 21, 1903

[Stage Direction]
So it would seem that the Grand Trunk Pacific are surveying the line to the north. This is a nice little piece of campaign literature, and X thought I would read it for the benefit of the minister.
The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: On which side ?	-


Samuel Hughes: Well, turn it either way. What I want to know is whether the -government will instruct the chief engineer, when they appoint him, to take over these survey parties ? I understand that they are almost entirely American.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We have no arrangement with the Grand Trunk in that respect. I understand their surveys are between North Bay and Winnipeg. Of course, only that part of their line which coincides with the contemplated line of the government can be used. But if bona fide surveys have been made which are found useful for the government's purposes, I think we should take them over and make a fair allowance for them.


Samuel Hughes: And take over the engineers, too ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not necessarily, but take over the surveys. However, this is speculative, as we have no arrangement.


James Clancy: Does the hon. gentleman intend, when lie appoints survey parties, that they shall enter upon the ground already surveyed by the Grand Trunk ? The hon. gentleman has just said that if a portion of these surveys turned out to be valuable the Grand Trunk people would be recouped for their outlay. That does not seem. unreasonable, unless the hon. gentleman intends to put a staff over the same territory.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think where competent engineers have covered the ground to the satisfaction of the chief engineer, after his appointment, I would not suppose it necessary to go over the same ground. That would be a matter in which we would take the advice of the chief engineer. After allowing for the work which the Grand Trunk have begun, there is still a large amount of work to be done which will require a number of parties. The estimate is made for the whole section. If it turns out that the Grand Trunk have completed the surveys for a reasonable distance, we would use a portion of this money to pay them for their surveys instead of organizing independent surveys.


James Clancy: Does the sum now asked for cover the whole cost of the surveys between Winnipeg and Moncton ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This estimate we think will be the cost of operations within the present year. I do not know that
it will cover the whole cost of the surveys,
I should think not.


James Clancy: Has the hon. gentleman any idea as to what they will cost ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: They will cost very much more than that. These are the estimates for the first year's operations..


Richard Blain: I suppose if the Grand Trunk Pacific Company had made some surveys the hon. gentleman would be in possession of that information.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: We know they have made some surveys, but how far they may be adapted to the government's purpose and how far they relate to branches which belong to the Grand Trunk proper, will he a matter for investigation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How much is allotted to each party of surveyors ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: About $30,000 or $31,000 for each party for the year. But as a portion of this year is already past we are not taking a full year's appr. priation.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: When will they begin operations ? I understand that these operations can be carried on during the winter.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, so far as the season will permit. They will begin immediately. After the passing of the legislation I presume the government will take the necessary steps to give effect to the intention of parliament. We desire to get the surveyors into the field with the least possible delay.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: How many are employed in each party ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The chief engineer has made a report to me, but I have not it at hand. If my hon. friend wishes for the information before concurrence, I will get it to-morrow.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Is there a staff out already ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Not on behalf of the government. The Grand Trunk people, according to current report, have some surveyors at work. But there has been no work on behalf of the government yet.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Have you any report from any staff working at present on these surveys ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, we have no such reports. We have no communication with them on.the subject whatever.


Samuel Hughes: I noticed some time ago that a gentleman by the name of McGinnis, of the Geological Survey, returned home, and I saw interviews from some of the men who had been in his party,

and one of them said that for upwards of 100 miles where this road was going, there was nothing but muskegs. Has the minister heard anything about it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No.
Trent canal-to pay Messrs. Corry & Laver-dure interest on increased prices awarded them by Messrs. Hobson, Surtees and Brophy, as arbitrators, from the dates the several quantities were returned in estimates and paid at original prices, up to July 1st, 1903, at 5 per cent per annum, $29,067.11. Interest on one-half cost of arbitration, $4,419, viz., $2,209.50 from date of payment of same by them, January 21, 1902, to July 1st, 1903, at 5 per cent, $159.20 ; also one-half cost of arbitration, $2,209.50 (correction of item in previous estimates), $31,435.81.


Tlie MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I wish to make a change in the first item for interest, $29,067.11, and reduce it to $26,533.14. This is interest on the claim of Messrs. Corry & Laverdure in connection with the Trent canal, the principal sum of which was allowed to them some time ago. It was a case in which certain work was done by them for which no prices were fixed in the contract, and the matter of determining the prices was referred to the judgment of the three engineers here named. These gentlemen made an award, and the principal sum has been paid, and this is to pay interest. There was an item in the estimates at an earlier stage that I struck out, because there was a difficulty in fixing the date at which interest should begin. It is not so much as these gentlemen claim, but we think the vote now proposed is a fair adjustment of the matter. The total should he charged to $28,901.84.
Soulanges canal-to pay J. & M. O'Leary interest on $17,467.28, from March 1, 1900, to August 28, 1903, at 5 per cent, $3,050.79.
And interest on $3,943.50, from March 1, 1900, to August 13, 1903, at 5 per cent, $680.66.


George Taylor: Why was that not settled before ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This claim has only recently been paid, although the work was done some time ago. The final estimates were not made up for a considerable time. The principal sum had been paid to them, and we are now proposing to pay them interest from the date at which it should begin, at five per cent. Where we pay interest at all I think there is much to he said in favour of taking the standard rate. Interest is a matter of grace, and we may not pay it at all, but in a case where these contractors have to borrow money from the banks, it is not unreasonable that they should be allowed five per cent for any delay on the part of the government.


Richard Blain: Is there any revenue received from the lease of water-power ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, the deputy thinks it is about $3,000 a year.


Samuel Hughes: Elections-to pay the account of the Prince Albert ' Advocate ' for advertising the proclamation and notice- of the Saskatchewan election of 1900, notwithstanding anything in the Dominion Elections Act, $297.48.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This item is inserted at the request of the Auditor General who became satisfied that the charge is a fair one, but he is not certain that he has the authority to pay it and he therefore asks for a vote of the House.


Richard Blain: How does it come that there is an item of $297 in connection with this election and nothing at all in connection with any other election in the west ?


Samuel Hughes: This was ordered without authority ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I am told it has been the custom to publish this advertisement and that it has been paid for on a previous occasion. The returning officer in his report says :
It bias always been customary here (Saskatchewan) to publish proclamations and election notices in both English -and French. The reason for this is the territory is so large and many settlers so isolated that it is impossible to cover -the district thoroughly with postal notices of proclamation. If it were not for the circulation of newspapers undoubtedly many persons would be in ignorance on election day as to where they should vote or would have great inconvenience in finding out. ... As an aid in distributing this information as it should be distributed the newspaper is invaluable and the necessity of its use is beyond question.


Samuel Hughes: Did the Conservative paper not get the advertisement too ?


The MINISTER OF FINACE.: I do not know whether this is a Conservative or a Liberal paper.


Samuel Hughes: Why did the Conservative paper not get it ? I am surprised at the hon. minister pressing a matter of this kind. I hope that in future he will see that the Tory papers get it so that the poor Tories will know where to go and vote. Will the hon. Minister of Finance make a promise to that effect 1


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: That will be taken into consideration.


Richard Blain: What amount was paid in the general elections in 1896 ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I cannot give the hon. gentleman the amount, but I am informed by one of my officers that he has discussed the matter with the Auditor General and he says it was1 paid on a previous occasion.


Richard Blain: Was it paid by a special vote ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: At that time it was paid without a special vote, but the Auditor General has become a little more critical and he likes to have votes.


Richard Blain: This is to help the hon. member for Saskatchewan (Mr. Davis) In his next election, I suppose ?


James Clancy: It seems to me that the returning officer has neglected his duty. Surely a notice In a newspaper is not the notice to be given to the electors by proclamation. There seems to be an irregularity in that explanation. It would appear that the returning officer did not post up the proclamations in order to give the people notice of the election, but that he paid the newspaper to do his duty.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: AVhat I would understand from the information furnished is that the legal notices were given, but that they would be insufficient and that they were supplemented by this newspaper advertisement.


Samuel Hughes: In the dual language ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I presume so.


James Clancy: I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Finance if he intends to take up any items that have been passed in connection with the Post Office Department ? The reason I ask is that there is an item standing which the lion. Postmaster General (Hon. Sir William Mulock) was to give some information about. It will not take much discussion.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: What was that ?


James Clancy: In regard to a post office in the west. The hon. Postmaster General was to bring down certain petitions and letters in connection with it.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: If the hon. Postmaster General promised my hon. friend that certain information would be brought down I will see that he gets it, so as to have an opportunity of discussing it whether it is on this item or any other.


Richard Blain: We did not get an explanation as to why it is necessary to publish the proclamation in this special newspaper in all western Canada and not necessary to do the same thing in any other constituency.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I noticed the other night when this matter was under discussion that the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) said that he recognized that the conditions of Saskatchewan were exceptional and that it might be quite reasonable and necessary to publish the notice there and not necessary elsewhere owing to the territory being so large and the difficulty of distributing the notices.


Samuel Hughes: The hon. minister should not add insult to injury by trying to stuff the committee. There is no reason for any such explanation. If the hon. member for Alberta (Mr. Oliver) had stated that
in his own constituency that there was some need for this same thiug there would be some sense in it. In Saskatchewan there is no settlement east of Prince Albert, settlement to the north only extends for 21 miles aud south and west this paper will not circulate. The hon. minister's explanation was that these poor people would not know where to go and vote but for the publication of this notice. If it is necessary to tell the Liberals how to vote, and I admit that they require a little more information than the Conservatives do, I insist that the Conservatives should also have an opportunity of knowing where to vote. Do I understand my hon. friend to promise that if one paper gets it next year the other paper will also get it ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I may not have control of it next year.


Samuel Hughes: Will ihe hon. minister give it serious consideration ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Yes, I will agree to that.


Richard Blain: The minister states that a similar amount to this was paid in 1896.
The -MINISTER OF FINANCE. I am informed by one of my officers that he learned from the Auditor General that an amount for the same purpose was paid after the general election of 1896.


Richard Blain: Why did the Auditor General pay the amount in 1896 without a special vote of parliament, and why does he require a special vote now ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: There are a number of things which the Auditor General has been doing for years, the legality of which he now questions, and asks that they be done in a different way.


James Clancy: He is getting suspicious.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: Perhaps so ; he has written a letter asking that this vote be taken for the reason that the Election Act does not sanction this method of publication.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman know what is the circulation of this paper, or does he know if it was done without the instruction of the returning officer ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: It is evident that the returning officer authorized it, judging from a reference in the letter of the Auditor General, who asks us to be good enough to include the amount in the supplementary estimates for the present fiscal year.	*


Samuel Hughes: The Auditor General asks for this vote.
To provide for expenses of investigation into trade combinations. Customs tariff Act, $5,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is to provide for any investigations which may be held under this Act. Mr. Justice Rich-

ards is now inquiring into tile alleged lumber combine in Manitoba. We have bad no report yet.
Contribution by Canada to Queen Victoria memorial, $146,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is an appropriation which the ministers in London last year agreed with Mr. Chamberlain to recommend to the consideration of parliament, as a contribution to the national memorial to the late Queen. The different colonies of the empire have, I think, all contributed, and the ministers agreed to recommend to the Canadian parliament a vote of 130,000 sterling. This memorial is to be erected in London, near Buckingham palace. The idea is that the memorial shall include designs to represent the various portions of the empire, but it is not advanced far enough at present to go into details.


Samuel Hughes: Carried.
To pay Charles Miller $3,713.32 and Robert Miller $3,339.05 for amounts deposited by them in the post office savings bank at St. Scholas-tique and fraudulently withdrawn by the assistant postmaster, $7,052.37.


Richard Blain: This item stood over for some information. If there were any other depositors who lost money why were they not paid 7


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: These are the only persons who lost money.


James Clancy: One of the questions asked was that the principal and interest should be separated. It arose on the question of how large a sum might be deposited at one time.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I find on inquiry from file superintendent of the savings bank that the rules admit of a deposit of $3,000 at one time.


Richard Blain: There was also a point about the insurance fund. Would the hon. minister give us a statement in respect to the amount paid out of this fund and how the fund stands at the present moment ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Bonds are taken only from postmasters and not from subordinates. The person who did this embezzling was an employee of the postmaster. It has never been the practice of the department to require bonds or security from the subordinate officials in an office of this kind.


Richard Blain: Were there no bonds to be attached and was there no responsibility nesting u?on the postmaster ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The Dostmaster himself gives bonds but the bonds taken from a postmaster at an office where, the revenue is not very large are small in amount and quite inadequate to meet any loss that might happen. The postmaster himself has given bonds of a private character. This was an old appointment not Hon. Mr. FIELDING.
occurring under our administration or under the modern system of security by assessment. Nothing has been recovered on it and it, is not thought that anything will be recovered from the postmaster.


Richard Blain: Do I understand that the postmaster appointed had bonds that were of no value to the department ? Are we to understand that the department were so, shall I say-


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Say anything you like ; make it good and strong.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend I hope is not inviting special criticism. The statement he has now given to the committee is different from the statement which he made the other day.
The POSTMASTER GENERAL I said that the general system adopted in the department to-day was to insure by the system of assessment and that I was under the impression that it was probable that this deputy postmaster was insured under that assessment system. On inquiry I find that the postmaster was an old officer who had given his security before the assessment system was adopted.


Richard Blain: What steps were taken to find out whether these bonds were valueless or to recover from the sureties ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not know what steps were taken to recover : the Deputy Postmaster General states that nothing has been recovered.


Richard Blain: Are we to understand that bonds are taken from a postmaster and not from a deputy postmaster ?	.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The system is to take bonds from the postmaster. We have not an arbitrary rule although I encourage, and favour the assessment system in preference to the private bond system. When the hon. gentleman is in a responsible position in a government, he will find that it is not always so easy to recover from private sureties. I have endeavoured to have the assessment system adopted in all new appointments, although even in the case of new appointments an option is given to the postmasters where the amount of security is comparatively trifling.


Richard Blain: Might I ask the minister what system he has of investigating and examining into the value of bonds given by postmasters in such a case as this. There seems to have been slackness on the part of the hon. gentleman.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: No doubt the department took all the proper business steps to find out whether the bondholders were good or not. I presume that an inquiry was made by the inspector of the district. The bond was taken by our predecessors, and no doubt at that time the

sureties made the usual affidavit of justification and the bond was assumed to be of good value. But when you try to recover on a bond, you will find it frequently impossible to get anything. Sometimes sureties will swear to their solvency, and yet when a loss occurs you cannot recover. Moreover people's conditions alter.


Richard Blain: Was there a law suit in this case ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: What does the hon. gentleman mean ?


Richard Blain: What steps did the department take to recover the sum of $7,000 which we are asked to vote ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say that the bonds were for $7,000. I am quite satisfied that they were for no such sum.


Richard Blain: Nor did I say they were, but I am asking the hon. gentleman to state what steps were taken to recover from the bondsmen who went security to the amount of the loss.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: My hon. friend has misunderstood me. I did not say that there were bonds for $7,000. It is not the practice to exact security to that extent, and I have no doubt that in this case there was no departure from the rule and that the amount of the bond was comparatively small as compared with the loss. My officer informed me that nothing could be recovered and I did not see what could be gained by a suit. As to the real embezzler, he has no means, but his family are very well off, and it was thought at one time that they would, for the honour of the family, come forward and make some contribution. However, they have not done so.


James Clancy: Can the hon. gentleman give me the information I asked for with regard to the dismissal at Port Lambton of a postmistress ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Are
we through with this estimate ?


James Clancy: If the hon. gentleman wishes to go on, I will not delay him.


Hiram Augustus Calvin: Do I understand that it is within the power of any postmaster to name a deputy, and if that deputy has power to do all the work of the office and receive money on deposit and yet not give any bond V


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The
postmaster must give security and he is responsible for the official he engages to assist him. Those he engage are sworn in by the inspector, who is supposed to exercise some discretion and in that way there is some departmental supervision as to who shall assist the postmaster. But the postmaster himself is the only one the govern-459
ment knows. In this case the postmaster gave a bond but the securities were not good for the amount, so that it was not considered possible to recover anything from them. Neither the sureties nor the postmaster are worth anything. The postmaster is responsible for the defalcation of his agent and his bond would cover that defalcation. It would not be practicable to obtain security from everybody engaged to work under the postmaster in a small post office. The emoluments of aniy of those1 postmasters are comparatively trifling and the value of the business trivial, and yet it would be possible for them to embezzle considerable sums. The postmasters are men of standing and character, which is the best security one can have, although one must not disregard ordinary business precautions and the taking of proper security.


Mr. FOWLER.: I do not think that the hon. minister has given a satisfactory explanation. In the first place, under the rule bnly $3,000 can be deposited; but it seems that there were two depositors in this case and the amount was $7,000. How could $7,000 belonging to two individuals get into the hands of this deputy ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: The man who committed these frauds got possession of the pass books of the depositors. In one instance he received $2,000 or $3,000 and only transmitted to the department a portion of that money, so that the superintendent of the money order branch was not aware that an attempt was being made to deposit more than the regulations allowed. It was not known by the department that that amount of money had been delivered to this man until the defalcation was discovered in the fall of 1892. The embezzler altered the entry in the pass book, and for a long time retained possession of it. It was only when the depositor insisted in getting possession of the pass book and not getting it communicated with the superintendent of the savings bank at Ottawa that the frauds came to light.


George William Fowler: The depositor must certainly have known that he was exceeding the legal limit of the deposit.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: No, the difference was in the interest.


George William Fowler: Then this thing must have lasted a long while to have accumulated all its interest.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It began in 1895 and lasted until 1902


George William Fowler: Then for seven years this depositor never saw his pass book ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I did not say that.


George William Fowler: The moment he saw it 1 he must have known.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: He was an illiterate man-could neither read nor write.


George William Fowler: It seems strange that this could be carried on for seven years and nobody any the wiser. Would not the postmaster know what deposits were being made ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: This man was the assistant.


George William Fowler: It seems that the postmaster might as well-


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: It was a postmistress.


George William Fowler: Does the postmistress still retain her position ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I do not think so, but am not sure.


George William Fowler: The Postmaster General does not seem to know more than the law allows about this matter. Of course, the amount is not. very large, but this seems to be establishing a precedent, and the committee should have the facts so as to be able to judge whether the money should be voted or not. The information must be in the hon. gentleman's department, and the item was left over in order that he might inform himself. On the basis of the facts made known, it seems to me we are not legally bound to pay this money. There may be an equitable claim, and that, of course, we should recognize. But it seems to me that this assistant postmaster was simply the agent of the Millers. He was handling their money and investing it for them. Of course, he may have made a bad investment of a considerable portion. I suppose there were pass-books ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: Yes. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Fowler) was not present when I made the explanation before. The assistant postmaster received money to transmit, but did not transmit it all. In one instance, I think he received $3,000 and only deposited $1,000. Having the passbook of these men, I think he forged the amount in the deposit book, or falsified the entries. He threw the men off their guard and retained custody of the pass-book. Another method of, embezzlement was to forge the name of the depositor to applications for withdrawals, transmit the pass-book of which he had the custody, and, as it was easy to recognize tjie envelope in which it came, intercepted the pass-book when it was sent back addressed to the depositor. Then he would forge the endorsement on the cheques issued on the savings banks. I am not familiar with all the details, but the case was in the hands of the Minister of Justice.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He retained some of the money, $2,000. Then be Mr. FOWLER.
forged requisitions on the department and intercepted the cheques payable to the order of the Millers. Then he forged the endorsement of the Millers on the cheque, and so the money never legally left the custody of the government.


George William Fowler: Did he take all the money ?


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: He took the whole business-simply left the books.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: Would not the banks be responsible when he forged the endorsation V


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: There was the forged requisition in the first place.


Samuel Hughes: The government issued a cheque on the forged requisition ?


George William Fowler: The forgery of the endorsation would not make the government liable, but the forgery of the requisition.


The MINISTER OF JUSTICE.: Yes.


James Clancy: Perhaps the hon. Postmaster General would give me the information now on the item that was allowed to stand-the petitions and correspondence with regard to the Lambton post office.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I am sending to the hon. gentleman (Sir. Clancy) the papers he asked for.


James Clancy: I do not wish to delay the consideration of this item to go over these papers. Do I understand that there are in these papers, which the hon. gentleman sent me, all the petitions and letters that passed ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I think that everythinig the hon. gentleman asked for is there.


Seymour Eugene Gourley: I have a letter from the postmaster at Tatamagouche post office, in Colchester county, asking what is done with the money kept as a percentage from the postmasters.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: If the officer at Tatamagouche is insured under the assessment system, his assessment goes into the common fund. There is an insurance fund that is deposited in the post office savings bank as an insurance fund, and in the event of a defalcation on the part of any officer so insured, the amount for which he is insured in the fund is withdrawable from the fund by Order in Council. It is the same as with a corporation that issues fidelity bonds. They accept premiums from those insured, and these premiums are the means wherewith the company carries on its business and makes its profits and meets its losses. I think in a place of this size the postmaster would give a bond of perhaps $400 at the outside.


Richard Blain: Where can we find a report of that insurance fund ?


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: It is not entered in the public accounts, it is a trust fund. Under the Act there is a trust fund which is not handed over to the receiver general or to the Postmaster General, but it is deposited in the savings bank as a special trust fund to be drawn upon to meet any loss occasioned by the defalcation of an officer.


Richard Blain: Is it in the report 1


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: There is no statement of that in the report. I could get a statement from the savings bank. We have an officer who looks after that in the books of the department.
Amount required for compensation for price of islands and improvements to be made on islands in the St. Lawrence river, $12,000.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The American authorities have several islands which have been kept as open parks with public landings. But there is no similar accommodation among the Canadian islands, and the purpose of this is to establish several public landings and to purchase sufficient grounds for the purpose, so that Canadians passing up and down may have some public landing places.


George Taylor: This is in accordance with an arrangement entered into between the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the Department of Public Works, with a deputation from the United States several years ago. The American government purchased and set apart a number of islands at certain points for public parks, both for Canadians and for Americans, and the Canadian government agreed to do the same. The islands that are set apart by the Canadian government belong to the Indian Department, and the government must vote the money and place it to the credit of the Indian Department in order to acquire the lands. I am glad to see that the government have acted on this arrangement after several years.


James Clancy: Before the committee rises, I wish to ask the Minister of Finance with regard to a petition to retain a post office where it was in the first instance, and where it had been for years, in a building belonging to a man by the name of McNulty, who was then postmaster. I do not see that petition among the papers.


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I brought down all the papers my hon. friend asked for. I told my deputy to go through the ' Hansard ' and see all that my hon. friend asked for, and transmit all the papers asked for. He says he has sent me more than the hon. gentleman asked for.


James Clancy: I asked for all the letters, papers and petitions in connection with it. I am not saying the hon. gentleman is withholding anything. I am merely asking if he has complied as far as possible with my request.
459i


The POSTMASTER GENERAL.: I have here a memorandum from my deputy in which he tells me he has sent me all that the hon. gentleman asked for, if not more.
I have not looked at the ' Hansard ' to see what my hon. friend asked for, but if he will go through the ' Hansard ' he will find that what he asked for is there, or else my deputy has misinformed me.


James Clancy: I only wish to be sure that all that is in the department in connection with the matter has been brought down. Of course it may have been that the petition was not sent to the department, but I know it was intended to be sent.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I find there is one small item of $1,300 which has been omitted in the estimates, and I have procured the consent of His Excellency for the same.



MESSAGE FROM THE GOVERNOR GENERAL-FURTHER SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF PTNANCE (Hon. W. S. Fielding) delivered a message from His Excellency the Governor General.
Mr. SPEAKER read the message as follows :
Minto.
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons further supplementary _ estimates of sums required for the public service of the Dominion for the year ending 30th June, 1904, and, in accordance with the provisions of ' the British North America Act, 1867,' the Governor General recommends these estimates to the House of Commons.
Government House, Ottawa,
21st October, 1903.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved that the message of His Excellency together with the estimates be referred to the Committee of Supply.
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: I think I will anticipate the wish of the House if I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to again leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of Supply to consider this estimate.
House again in Committee of Supply.
Administration of Justice-to supplement the retiring allowance of Mr. Justice Henry, $1,333.34.


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: This is one of the judges of the province of Nova Scotia who has been laid aside by a very severe illness, and who is now about to retire. It has been agreed between himself and the government that for one year he shall be allowed his full salary. He is a comparatively young man who but for his illness would have many years of service on the bench. It has been agreed that the

government shall recommend the payment of his full salary for one year after which he will receive the ordinary superannuation.



RAILWAY ACT, 1903-CONFERENCE WITH THE SENATE.

[Stage Direction]
The MINISTER OF FINANCE presented a report from the special committee appointed to draw up reasons to be offered at a conference with the Senate for disagreeing with certain amendments made by the Senate to Bill (No. 21) entitled an Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting Railways.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That a conference be desired with the Senate for the purpose of communicating the reasons which induce this House not to concur in the amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. (21) intituled : * An Act to amend and consolidate the law respecting railways.'


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved :: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The MINISTER OF FINANCE moved the adjournment of the House.
Frederick Debartzch Monk: What will be the order of business for to-morrow ?


The MINISTER OF FINANCE.: The resolutions touching the Quebec bridge.


Frederick Debartzch Monk: After that ?
The MINISTER OF1 FINANCE. Concurrence and any matters which remain on the paper generally.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 12.55 a.m., Thursday.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 22, 1903.